Talk:The Dancing Dogs of Dombrova

Strong contender for deletion

This film is not significant and does NOT meet notability guidelines. From Wikipedia's own definition of notable subjects. Notable topics—"those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". This film has NOT received SUFFICIENTLY SIGNIFICANT attention from THE WORLD AT LARGE. None of the major figures involved in the film have a Wiki article themselves and the ones that do only have very short stubs, likely created by the subject themselves or people close to the subject. Not one actor involved in the film, including the two leads, has a Wiki page. Additionally, many citations used for reviews to falsely demonstrate this film's "notability" are from non-notable sources and film websites such as Cinema Axis, That Shelf, The Underscene etc. One source that does have a Wiki page (Playback magazine) is a bare bones stub and almost all the citations listed on that page are from Playback itself or again from non-notable sources such as the USPTO.report. Of the four remaining sources that do have a Wiki page: The Georgia Straight doesn't even mention the film. North Shore News doesn't even have a Wiki page itself and merely redirects to Glacier Media Group, a conglomerate that owns hundreds of non-notable publications and newspapers including North Shore News. The North Shore News "source" doesn't even direct to a link. It's just an unsourced quote and likely made up. The Courier-Post again is another non-notable "source" that merely has a Wiki stub and its only coverage of the film is one tiny blurb merely mentioning THE DANCING DOGS OF DOMBROVA being screened at the festival. The last source, the Austin American-Statesman, is literally the ONLY sizable and notable publication to publish anything about this film. And the only piece that they published about it was a mere MENTION that this film would screen at the Austin Film Festival (with a one sentence plot synopsis). That is it. Two small blurbs does NOT constitute "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" in any way whatsoever. The only reviews for the film is from non-notable local online critics writing for their blogs and websites. The film has also not been screened anywhere other than mostly obscure film festivals. The film barely has over 100 votes on IMDb and it doesn't even have a single review on Rotten Tomatoes after 8 years. This film is not notable in any way, shape or form. So, how does this film warrant a Wiki article of its own in any way whatsoever? This article was likely created and edited by persons associated with the production and should be deleted, as it is not notable in the slightest.

User:Ldavid1985 02:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Seven footnotes equals passage of WP:GNG right on the face of it, and the quality, existence or non-existence of a Wikipedia article about a newspaper or magazine is in no way whatsoever a prerequisite for being able to cite it as sourcing. The difference between a reliable source and an unreliable source hinges on the publication's own internal editorial standards, not on whether we've gotten around to writing a good article about it yet or not — and there is not even one substandard or unreliable source being cited anywhere in this entire article at all.
  Further, this film won two awards from a notable film festival whose awards automatically nail a film's notability to the wall forever, as well as screening in competition at another notable film festival whose competition lineup automatically nails a film's notability to the wall forever. You're perfectly free to go pout in the corner all you like, but you are not making any credible argument here that this film's notability is in any question. Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Where in this section WP:GNG does it state that seven footnotes equals passage of general notability? I would love to see it or have it referenced. Also, this section also literally defines significant coverage as being "more than a trivial mention". Most of the sources listed in this film's Wiki page merely mention the film as a title to be screened at whatever festival was mentioned. From the Courier-Post citation, the Austin American-Statesman, North Shore News, the first Playback citation, and the citation from That Shelf. Mere mention of the film does not constitute "significant coverage". And not a single review of the film on Rotten Tomatoes in 8 years. So, the only citations that talk about the film in any length are The Underscene and Cinema Axis, which mount to barely above blog site reviews. So, yes, I am making a very credible argument that this film's notability is in question.

  And as per:

  "and there is not even one substandard or unreliable source being cited anywhere in this entire article at all"

  That's because I personally REMOVED the unreliable source as it didn't even mention the film's title even once, despite it is being deliberately misused to establish this film's "notability". And lastly, very nice to result to personal insults on this film's talk page. Very professional and scholarly of you, especially as a master editor.

  User:Ldavid1985 09:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The rule for WP:GNG typically requires a minimum of WP:THREE sources. The rule is also not that every source in an article has to be an extended 10,000 word dissertation — shorter mentions can still contribute to notability if they're (a) reliable, and (b) verify a noteworthy fact. For instance, a reliable source which verifies that a film won a notable award from a notable film festival counts toward notability even if it just briefly mentions the film, because it's a reliable source verifying a fact that counts as a valid notability claim. In fact, almost all film awards are verified primarily by brief mentions in lists of award winners rather than detailed coverage — if a film wins a major notability-making award from a film festival or a national awards program like the Oscars or the CSAs, that fact will virtually always be sourced to a list of that year's winners which fails to discuss the individual films in any greater depth, just because that's how reporting film awards works.
So as long as the cited source is a reliable one, as Playback most certainly is, it still counts as a notability-building source regardless of whether it's providing detailed coverage or just a mention, because it's verifying a notability-building fact about the film winning a notable award from a notable film festival.
As for the source you removed, all that happened there is that the source for that year's Borsos Competition winners got accidentally pulled over to this article instead of the source for that year's Borsos Competition lineup — so the source has been replaced with a different one accordingly. But The Georgia Straight is most certainly not an unreliable source either, and the Borsos Competition is a competitive lineup at a notable film festival, and thus counts as a notability-assisting award nomination in an entirely different way than screening out of competition would.
The reality is, with media in such a financial crisis in the 2020s, traditional newspapers are heavily cutting back on original arts reporting, so film critics are writing far, far more for web-only platforms like That Shelf or Cinema Axis rather than conventional daily newspapers now — but that doesn't make them unreliable sources, a test which again hinges on evaluating the publication's own internal editorial standards (is there a posted masthead where we can see the names of who's taking editorial responsibility, are their pieces generally bylined, do they have an identifiable record of publishing corrections if they do make a mistake, etc.) rather than on whether we have a high-quality article about the publication or not.
And shorter sources most certainly can contribute to notability just like longer ones — a passing mention of the film in an article about an otherwise unrelated film wouldn't assist, but a shorter source that actually says more about the film than just its name alone most certainly does. A short capsule review dedicated to the film most certainly does count as a notability point, a short mention of the film winning a notable award in a list of that notable award's winners most certainly does count as a notability point, and on and so forth. I mean, I'm certainly not going to pretend that this film somehow rivals Citizen Kane as one of the most notable films of all time, but that doesn't matter, because "as important as Citizen Kane" isn't part of our notability standards for films at all: lots of independent films that may not seem notable because you've never heard of them can easily pass our actual notability standards for films, because the only thing we require is that reliable sources are verifying notability-assisting facts about the film, which is absolutely present here.
I also fail to see where I "insulted" you at all, but whatevs. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)