Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah's Choice (2nd nomination)

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 ~~Obvious Speedy~~ Keep. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 10:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too pedantic, but this was not a speedy keep; see WP:SK. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah's Choice[edit]

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

Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources necessary for a WP:NFILM pass: one or two reviews in promotional non-RS is all it boasts. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for every direct-to-video propaganda flick.

(Previous AFD cited coverage in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Times-Herald, and Pilot News - but the former two are trivial mentions, one in a list of films screened at a film festival and the other a passing announcement of a screening in a promotional fluff piece, and given that the latter has a completely unrelated headline I'm guessing that that, too is a passing mention at best. It also cited WP:GOOGLEHITS, but that's obviously not a measure of notability since most of the hits are unrelated, eg. are about Sarah Palin, others are WP:ROUTINE and possibly paid announcements of screenings, and others are non-RS such as the perennially rejected LifeNews.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - First step should have been to ask for additional references. News searches are slanted to recent events, not film releases from three years ago. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News also has an archive, which I looked through. It has news pieces going back decades. Reliable sources don't cover this film. Would you care to provide a rationale (WP:SK) for your speedy keep? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the article has been upgraded with additional references. I suppose if you look for them, references will be found. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. [ [User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy close per the sound logic of the original AFD. It takes virtually no effort to also turn up US-national TV coverage [1] [2]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per HW till I can get back on my actual computer. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 05:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close per the topic being the recipient of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. While User:DQ might do more when he returns to his home computer, I have just myself given the article some additional expansion and sourcing,[3] and it was not at all difficult to do. The nominator's statement underscores that a "Find sources" assigned by a AFD template is occasionally flawed, and that simply using the two words "Sarah's Choice" will return multiple false positives. So with a little smarts to address false positives, I inserted "Rebecca St. James" into the search parameters and found a plethora of sources. And no... I'm not "claiming" G-Hits, but have actually searched through the results[4][5] to use the easily found sources to improve the article,[6] just as editing policy instructs. Or did the nominator judge the previously-kept article[7] on a mis-perception that Christian media are not allowed to offer coverage of Christian topics? With respects to his nomination statement and his perhaps feeling the film's topic is Christian-centric-propaganda... Wikipedia is not censored. We are not concerned with the truth or not of a topic. What DOES MATTER is the topic having the requisite significant coverage to meet and pass our notability criteria and thus allow us to write a neutral and encyclopedic article on the well-covered topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable source coverage is copious, easy to find, and in depth enough to meet WP:GNG. --Jayron32 22:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry for the piling on, Ros, but there are plenty of sources, and you dismiss the Christian ones far too lightly. It's a Christian film, dismissing Christian sources for it is like dismissing Physics sources for a film about Physics. --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting GNG, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Union in Wait, similar level of coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:57, 3 April 2012 (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.