- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 180 Documentary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. References/links are all blogs. reddogsix (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the nominator I have watched the transition the article has made from biased discussion lacking references to one that meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I now believe the article should be included and urge the closing Admin to close the AfD with a Keep resolution. I commend MichaelQSchmidt work on the article and wish to thank him for his hard work. MichaelQSchmidt is representative of a core of dedicated volunteers that helps keep Wikipedia alive and at a high level of quality. MichaelQSchmidt my hat is off to you. reddogsix (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. Per your withdrawal I am going to do a non-admin closure now, once I can find the help page again. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nominator. All my researches lead to some promotional articles in extremist/radical Christian blogs/sites, that are not reliable and definitely do not have a neutral point of view. IMDB and major film websites simply ignore the existence of this "film". Meets WP:Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity, instead fails WP:N, WP:GNG and all the criteria of WP:MOVIE. --Cavarrone (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No cause for speedy here, but delete as failing the notability guidelines. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Striking my previous !vote and changing to keep in light of the commendable work done by Michael Q. Schmidt. I am satisfied that WP:GNG is met in this case. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect to Ray Comfort#Film. While seen as controversial, the film is verifiable and not only in Christian media and websites. I agree that sources are problematic in the current version, and the film lacks notability for a separate article. But it is not unsourcable... and by being at least verifiable,[1] we can direct readers to the one place where it is already mentioned in context to the filmmaker himself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)(struck. See below)[reply]- Keep Needs improvement, certainly, but more sources appear to be coming; see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell ya what... I'll go over and see if I can neutralize the article, correct its format and style, and add a section on critical response. If the thing is getting atention, even negative attention, we may have a sutable meeting of WP:NF, despite the topic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and continue improvements, as it does need more. I've changed my mind after beginning some sandblasting and cleanup to begin neutralizing and sourcing the article.[7] More to do, yes... but such is an addressable issue, specially as not all available sources are blogs, not all sources promote the film, and many of the available sources are reliable.[8] Editors should simply not use those that are not. As the film is released, and is receiving commentary and review in enough suitable secondary sources, we do have a meeting of WP:NF and WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.