Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/40 (film)


 * 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. I am prepared to userfy this (like almost every other article I delete) if requested. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

40 (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found no significant coverage for this film. Fails the notability guideline at WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Did you notice any reference at all? -- Taku (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The key word is significant. SL93 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first reference is not independent of the subject and the second reference is an unreliable Wordpress blog. SL93 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Three new references were added which are a press release, another blog, and another primary source. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy. The problem with the sources given is that none of them can really be used as a RS to show notability. They're all either blogs that wouldn't qualify as a reliable source, sources that aren't independent of the subject, or sites that just wouldn't pass muster as far as RS in general goes. At this point in the here and now, there isn't enough coverage for this to pass notability guidelines. However I don't particularly see any reason why this can't be userfied and worked on until reliable sources appear. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Gong   show  02:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy Allow back to article space if and when this film receives commentary and analysis in Wikipedia-accepted reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't have coverage from reliable sources; blogs and agenda rags can cover it as much as they like but that's not how notability works here. I don't see the point in userfying; the film's been out long enough that it's got the coverage that it's going to get, and it is not customary to keep something in user space that has no potential of making it to article space. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon, while this is a topic of interest only to pro-lifers, I agree it has not yet received coverage from reliable sources (unless we have any generally accepted set of pro-life news blogs that can be used). Userfication of this 2013 film allows its author to look for and include sources when they come forward. If this were a 2007 film that never received coverage, I would happily agree with your point.  But documentaries rarely get the same level of coverage as do fictional narratives, and allowing someone to work on improving this OUT of mainspace, and allowing a return after notability is established is exactly what userspace is for. It is hubris to WP:CBALL declare that a new documentary film could never be notable or to imply that it has to already be notable in order for it to be worked on out of mainspace. If it were notable, we'd have no argument and no AFD. And in my own not deciding it as simply a storage place to "keep" unworthy articles,  I think it serves the entire intent of building an encyclopedia to allow imperfect articles to be worked on OUT of article space. We do not expect nor demand immediate perfection, do we?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:08, 23 July 2013 (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.