Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. The Forbes review is contributed, the LA Times review is a capsule review, and the others aren't by nationally known film critics. wumbolo ^^^ 16:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per newspaper coverage already noted. Each would have to be shown to be trivial or "capsule" to justify deletion; that burden is not met. FChE (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no good reason why the article shouldn't exist. Dogman15 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as, in addition to the arguments proposed above, the film also meets the criteria of Notability. It refers to a real-life event that has been covered in established news sources. Furthermore, the film itself has also proven the subject of news reporting. Perhaps this should lead to more such citations needed to that effect, but lack of such citations should hardly warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushLimborg (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historically, this film is one of the highest grossing crowd-funded projects to date. The only reason to delete this entry is purely political, and Wikipedia shouldn't pull entries because of a political agenda. That's bad for everyone--especially Wikipedia if they want to be a neutral site for the dissemination of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.170.178 (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — 74.196.170.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. 1. This article includes references from multiple unquestionable reliable sources and since most are articles on the film, not mere mentions that indicate notability. SOme unquestionably notable reliable sources Fortune, NBC News, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The New York Post, Slate, a local NBC affiliate, The Washington Examiner, The Wall Street Journal, and The Seattle Times. Other sources: TownHall.com, The Hollywood Reporter, National Review, Deadline, CinemaBlend, Law360, and Daily Wire. 2. If you compare it to other entries in , which is the category it is part of, it has far more reliable sources and notability than most (I just compared a few at random). 3. The movie maker's choice to do no pre-screenings for critics noted in the article may be a reason for the lack of large critiques but it alone isn't enough to delete it. 4. The film had a clear political or policy slant that many disagree with, but Wikipedia is not for moderating such points. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 01:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - per WP:NFP, notability is shown by media coverage. In addition to WSJ, Forbes, the LA Times and the Hollywood Reporter, and other sources listed above, there's also Philadelphia Inquirer coverage. [[7]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The movie is real, in cinemas, and will be a DVD. The transcript is based on the Facts of a Court Case which really happened and from which a conviction resulted. Anybody can verify this in the official Records. There's no reason to delete this article from Wikipedia. People searching for information will need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelticUser (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — CelticUser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • That was not intended as canvassing. I read policies on speedy keep and was uncertain if they applied here so wanted editors with more experience to weigh in. I have not dealt with speedy keep before and after reading policies I was not sure if they applied to this case. I mentioned the list of sources as the main question was whether such sources were sufficient for speedy keep. Apologies if this was misinterpreted. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all the arguments above, particularly Tim Templeton's. A publicly released movie featuring a famous actor (Dean Cain) that was reviewed in major newspapers (L.A. Times, WSJ) is so obviously notable that it's hard to imagine any argument for deletion. — Lawrence King (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't reviewed in the WSJ. wumbolo ^^^ 11:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google search of "Gosnell Movie & WSJ" turns up this: [8] DynaGirl (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gosnell:_The_Trial_of_America%27s_Biggest_Serial_Killer&oldid=865368145"