Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agenda: Grinding America Down

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 delete. J04n(talk page) 10:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda: Grinding America Down[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded by author who felt that removing paraphrases was sufficient to circumvent "Fails WP:GNG". There are zero sources for this film on Google Books, and only five hits on Google News, of which three are "such-and-such local church is showing Agenda: Grinding America Down". I see nothing to suggest that it comes within a mile of meeting WP:NFILM — everyone associated with it is redlinked, and the only award doesn't seem sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are the two reviews and the award, although I'm not entirely sure that this is enough at this point in time. I'll do some more digging and see what I can find. Is the director particularly notable? Can we make an article based upon the director and redirect there? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm finding so far is that he was a representative that held a viewpoint many saw and still see as strange. Many of the sources report more on the viewpoint and I'd hesitate with using some of these because they tend to play the Communist claims up for laughs rather than reporting on them in a more neutral manner. In other words, many of these read like blogs rather than news reports, so it's questionable what if any of these can be used.[1], [2], [3], [4] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage all appears to be local, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to point fingers and make a mountain out of a mole hill but given that the same user requested it for deletion twice within 2 days rather than giving it more time for addressing the issues. When the article creator tried to discuss the page here the user who put it up for deletion appeared to ignored it. It seems a bit premature to bring this up again. Whilst I agree the article has some issues and does need to be addressed, it should be worked on and not blanket deleted. Wikipedia has a duty to be encyclopaedic and ensure that the little films, as well as the big films, have their voices heard. Not saying that every Tom, Dick or Harry who makes a film as a part of an academic course should get a page, but this is clearly not one of those scenarios. MisterShiney ✉ 08:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I give it more time? Why is this premature? Going from prod straight to AFD is a perfectly natural course if I failed to find sources. I loathe the "give it time" argument. Do you really think sources will spring up from nowhere in X amount of days? Sources don't appear out of thin air, you know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the point is, you PROPOSED it. It was rejected as per WP:PRD at which point, and I quote "If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the proposed deletion tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." and you were obviously not happy with it so you then run over to the AFD page to try and get it deleted it through another route less than 2 days later. You haven't even tried to discuss changing the article with the editors involved or even gone over to the article talk page to discuss properly why you proposed ther deletion in the first place! Maybe they won't pop up in a few days, which is stands to reason why it should remain until such a time that it gains credibility. You might be chatting in a coffee shop one day and someone mentions this film that you should watch. Where are you going to go for more info? HERE! But oh you can't because someone decided that because it wasn't "Notable" enough it shouldnt be here. We are in a VIRTUAL space. There is no limit on what we can include! We are an ENCYCLOPEDIA - a central deposit of information that quite frankly isn't available elsewhere. Whilst I do not disagree that this article needs work, it should not be deleted on the grounds that a google search doesn't provide much information, and I repeat previous question of what the heck has google books got to do with anything...? MisterShiney ✉ 00:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the path I think this article should face. Individuals are attempting to sort out the issues concerning this article so this AfD discussion is thorough. By the way, I originally wrote this article and appreciate it having a day in court. Bill Pollard (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with my Highbeam account, and find mention of a Tea Party group showing the film, and various announcements of it being shown for free but asking for a donation. No real coverage on what it is though. Dream Focus 09:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting basically the same result. The sources currently used do not appear to be reliable by WP standards,. Although the North review is a very well-written critique from someone who does seem to be an expert on this type of subject it is posted on what appears to be his own website. The other sources used are from sites that actually take seriously the premise that the United States is about to be taken over by communists, so I think it is safe to say they are not sites with tight fact-checking and editorial oversight. There's not much else out there except for announcements that the film is being shown in one place or another. Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for failing WP:NF. Okay... though I often fight for the underdog, I'll be first to agree with TPH. As a documentary now-nearly-3-years-since-release, it has not received the requisite coverage in mainstream reliable sources. Yes, we can find reviews in non-reliable or (some) "right wing" media such as Religion Dispatches Free Republic Dangerous Minds Squidoo Chick Publications Gary North Generation-Impact Indy Christian Review Steeple Media Religio Political Talk and others... these, no matter how inciteful some may be, do not amount to the independent reliable sources Wikipedia requires. If someone finds The New York Times covering the topic, I can reverse myself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep as per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NF, all the coverage comes from non-independent or unreliable sources. Cavarrone (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's incredibly questionable that this film is notable at any level, most i can tell is that it's a very small film, limited release and the only coverage it's getting comes from unreliable (and dare I say entirely non-neutral) sources. Fails WP:NFILM for lack of wide coverage even after some years from release. tutterMouse (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2013 (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.