Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inconvenient Truth 2 (TV series)


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth 2 (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find significant coverage of this WP:NFILM film in third party sources. Searches for are all about a possible sequel to Al Gore's film. does not bring up significant relevant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... disco spinster   talk  18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Deletebriefly per WP:TOOSOON. Did some searches on this article sourced only to its "official website"... a Facebook page. Seems that distributor The Community Channel has not yet been connected with this project, and adding the creator or country with the title (to hopefully weed out the Al Gore false positives) give results only in non-RS. While the project may well have been created as an answer to the Gore film, reliable sources have not yet decided to take note. Let it come back after actually screening and receiving some coverage.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above- much better stated that I could say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braniff747SP (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - you can see the Community Channel's press release at www.jackguest.com - using a facebook page as official website isn't less valid than a stand-alone website. I'm sure you all realise this isn't a fake, and is broadcasting on the community channel, and will be available internationally online from December 10th BTW - The film was called 'a Convenient Truth' up until around 3 weeks ago. You can see third-party info about the film by searching google for 'A Convenient Truth Jack Guest':  Plus an article about the film from a Swedish newspaper here:  :) apologies for my newbie editing skills!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackGuest (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 November 2011‎
 * You might care to check WP:USERNAME. If you are THE Jack Guest, you might wish to not edit the article, as it could be seen as self promotion and be an conflict of interest. If you are not THE Jack Guest, a username change could prevent misunderstandings. See WP:UNC, WP:AVOIDCOI, WP:NAU  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...ahhhh. A new search parameter. I'll do some digging and report back. And am alwys willing to change my mind. But just to let you know, per WP:RS and WP:SPS, official or not, user edited networking sites such as Facebook are not considered reliable sources toward notability... nor are press releases or special interest websites.  We depend on verifiability through reliable sources. News reports and commentary work pretty well for us. Back in a bit.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks all - commentary and reviews starting to appear on blogs now: http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/11/inconvenient-truth-2-world-premiere.html
 * To enlighten... as they usually lack editorial oversite, blogs are generally considered non-RS... though there are exceptions. Rising blog activity might act as an indicator that we might expect upcoming coverage in properly reliable sites as they take notice of the rising blog activity, but the blogs themselves.... rarely. Just sayin'.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)




 * Comment As the article is simply WP:TOOSOON, incubation for a few weeks may be a reasonable solution. To reiterate: let it come back after actually screening and receiving some coverage IN RELIABLE SOURCES. If it is not improved while out of mainspace, it will be deleted anyway... and with no fanfare.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And with no fanfare? What do you mean? It will be deleted anyway.. because its not well written enough? If so perhaps you could lend your experience to the piece? I'll post RSs here as they appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.115.194 (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not because it wasn't well written, but because the hoped for reliable sources did not come forward. A "no fanfare" deletion from incubation is based upon artcles there already having been discussed at AFD. The processes in place there give editors time to address issues, but incubation is not to be used as permament strorage for articles that are not improved.  We do not maintain unsourcable content in mainspace on expectations or promises of coverage. Places such as the incubator or a user's draft space are where improvements take place for topics that are not yet ready for mainspace. And incubation is intended only as a temporary reprive... where if an article is not corrected to address the concerns of an AFD, it will eventually be deleted. And as for my "experience", I take pride in being able to improve articles that face deletion, and have a decent track record for doing so.... but my rescues are based upon actually having sources, and I do not find them in this case. I understand your angst, and offer a solution that does not mandate immediate deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information Michael, much appreciated :) Here's a brand new article printed in a Swedish newspaper yesterday: http://www.kristianstadsbladet.se/kristianstad/article1580623/Kristianstad-forebild-i-tv-serie-om-miljon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackGuest (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changed from delete per fact that we now have a reliable source that confirms assertions in that article. The film is now verifiable in a secondary independent reliable source to have been completed and set to and screen in a matter weeks. We can let this stay and be improved over time and through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic news, thank you Michael for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackGuest (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider it a reprieve. I am aware of all the non-Rs discussing the film, but it was only the actual confirmation of its imminent airing in a reliable source that pushed it just over the top for me. Keep in mind though, that if it does not receive coverage or commentary after it airs, it could likely return to AFD. Just sayin'.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:20, 29 November 2011 (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.