Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hole in the Paper Sky
- 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. SoWhy 07:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hole in the Paper Sky[edit]
- Hole in the Paper Sky (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)
Non-notable film fails WP:NFILM. Appears to be a WP:PROMOTION violation by a WP:SPA. GretLomborg (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per topic meeting WP:NFILM. I will not vilify a new editor simply because his edits are limited and show inexperience, and instead look to a film's coverage directly and in some detail in sources such as Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel, TopNews, iTechPost, SoundTrack Geek. These can be added through regular editing. That his NEW contributions was tagged for a speedy just one minute after being contributed and while it was being actively edited is worrisome. Deletion of an arguably notable film is not per policy nor guideline and it might have been better to suggest he begin articles in a draftspace. Best for the project is to allow him to add sources.
- This article has been sitting out there since 2010, so this isn't an instance of trying to delete something while its being worked on or "vilifying a new editor." Those sources are very shallow, for instance the LA Times does no more than list this movie with the rest of Jessica Biel's work. One is just a one-man blog and doesn't even cover the movie itself. The only one that's close to good is the Orlando sentinel one, which fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. The movie fails all the tests in WP:NFO of WP:NFILM. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Had this article been brought to AFD back in 2010, I'd have agreed with a deletion. But being released and having coverage, we do have WP:NF met... even if weakly. Needs more research, thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd argue that the coverage is too weak and shallow to meet WP:NFILM or the WP:GNG. At best it should be merged into Jessica Biel. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Had this article been brought to AFD back in 2010, I'd have agreed with a deletion. But being released and having coverage, we do have WP:NF met... even if weakly. Needs more research, thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- This article has been sitting out there since 2010, so this isn't an instance of trying to delete something while its being worked on or "vilifying a new editor." Those sources are very shallow, for instance the LA Times does no more than list this movie with the rest of Jessica Biel's work. One is just a one-man blog and doesn't even cover the movie itself. The only one that's close to good is the Orlando sentinel one, which fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. The movie fails all the tests in WP:NFO of WP:NFILM. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep First step should be to improve the article, and/or tag it for improvement, not list it for deletion. Please review wikipedia policy WP:BEFORE Powertothepeople (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- 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.