Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Semple McPherson movie


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Aimee Semple McPherson movie
Promotion for a non-notable movie made with a consumer-grade camcorder starring mostly unknown performers that has never been in general release. Will Beback 23:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, Film mentioned in Ministries today (Dec. 2005), Film Threat magazine (2006), Charisma Magazine (October, 2005), East Valley Tribune (August 27, 2005) Hollywood Reporter and Variety production listings (2004-2005), InMag (Spring, 2005), Hollywood Jesus (2005), imdb.com, ZReview, movietome.com, and other publications cited on reviews and links at aimeesemplemcphersonmovie.com. This is the only feature dramatic film to explore Aimee McPherson's significance to evangelism and the history of Los Angeles.  To delete out of discrimination against women, Christianity, or art created on a low budget is to miss the larger issues of the work.  Jacksbernstein
 * Delete, non-notable. &mdash; Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: An anon has been removing the afd1 text on the article repeatedly. I've warned him not to. &mdash; Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep its at imdb -- Astrokey44 |talk 00:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable Makgraf 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete. This is not the IMDb, and the fact that an entry on this movie can be found at the IMDb only makes this article more worthy of deletion, as no knowledge will be lost. Brian G. Crawford 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very very weak keep, if only because the film has a few name actors in it, such as Rance Howard. However, some serious editing is required, as the article reads like a puff piece written by a publicist, or Rossi himself. Someone's definitely trying to pimp this film, though, as the same anonymous edtitor keeps trying to insert it into a list of significant independent films. MikeWazowski 02:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, sounds very bad/amateur.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- perhaps give it one sentence in Aimee Semple McPherson. Catamorphism 03:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepArticle mentions both viewpoints concerning film. Filmmaking is effected by digital revolution and films made digitally on smaller budgets are a significant movement, akin to French New Wave of the 1960's. Usr talk: sirrodburton
 * Delete useless, insignificant and looks like an advertisement. Sheehan (Talk) 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable movie -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn, no IMDB page means is definitely non-notable, only in exceptional cases. --Ter e nce Ong 09:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It does have an IMDb page. David Sneek 09:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's at IMDb, it's got a notable actor, it's reviewed here and here. It does have POV problems and it should probably be moved to Aimee Semple McPherson (movie), though. David Sneek 09:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is at the IMDb. It requires improvements - I will be happy to make these if the consesus is to keep. Oliver Keenan 10:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per MikeWazowski. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the most notable thing that can be said about this movie is that "it's on IMDb." Personally, I don't think that's worth a whole lot on its own, much like something isn't notable just because it's on Wikipedia. Lord Bob 16:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The movie features at least one notable actor who already has a Wikipedia entry.  It was apparently noteworthy to the SAG.  It's on the IMDB.  It's notable.  It's also still too POV, but Oliver Keenan has volunteered to fix that.  --Hyperbole 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per IMDb, SAG, etc., but make sure the POV gets cleaned up. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep based upon the comments from MikeWazowski. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:00, 23 March 2006 (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.