Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonicsgate

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 keep. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicsgate

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

Reasons for recommending deletion:

(1) The article Sonicsgate was created by a user also named Sonicsgate, whose only contributions to Wikipedia are to the same article.
(2) I could find no entry for Sonicsgate on Rotten Tomatoes or BoxOfficeMojo. I suspect all, if not nearly all, notable films in recent years have entries on these websites.
(3) A review of the director, writers, and narrator for this film on IMDb reveals they either have no credits other than this film or only a handful of other non-notable credits.
(4) The film appears to have made a negligible impact on the North American box office.

I feel that it is appropriate to conclude that the article is not much more than free advertising for a film promoting certain political and economic beliefs of a few amateur film-makers. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find a few news outlets who briefly mention the film but nothing which even borders on in-depth coverage. Fails WP:N and film notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with and some comments toward the nominator's reasoning...

The article author should have chosen a different username... but the article belongs to WIkipedia now.
Sports documentaries don't usually receive coverage by Rotten Tomatoes, and those that are going the festival route don't usually pop up at Box Office Mojo.
That producers or directors of an independent sports documentary may have few or no previous credits has nothing to do with the documentary's notability, as notability is not inherited.
That a documentary film makes small impact on North American box office receipts has little to do with notability, unless that national sales somehow become notable. It is the big-budget highly-touted studio-blockbusters that make the moolah. What's more, the filmmakers are allowing that the entire 2-hour film can be seen for free online. So no... it ain't never gonna make a dent to any box office records.

As the article now belongs to Wikipedia, and has a surprising amount of coverage for such a genre-specific independent film that has only been out for 4 months, the article will benefit from cleanup and additional sourcing. But these are surmountable issues and no reason to delete. And because I because I found coverage that is in-depth and by no means a trivial mention, I'm going to head over and begin... Any sports fans wanna help? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Multiple significant and in-depth coverage has been found, and the article expanded and so-sourced since first nominated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering the number of sources which have been found and how in-depth the coverage is it's got to be a keep. Kudos to MichealQSchmidt for the excellent finds. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking on Google news search at the top of the AFD, there are results mentioning this documentary. The first is from the Seattle Times[1]. Clearly notable. And most people register a Wikipedia account because they want to create an article. Having no previous edits before this, doesn't make any difference at all. Dream Focus 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COI issues aside, the topic appears to meet notability guidlines. RadioFan (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (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.