Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are All Men Pedophiles? (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   delete. It's yours if you want it MQS Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Are All Men Pedophiles?
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

In December 2011, we held at Articles for deletion/Are All Men Pedophiles? that this documentary did not have sufficient notability to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Later, the article was re-created verbatim from a copy of the deleted page, and the only significant change since its re-creation is the addition of ref. VIII - regarding a petition signed by the Lolita community to oppose the use of a certain image in the documentary's promotional poster. In my view, minor controversy about the film's poster does not increase the subject's notability by such a degree that we can justify its inclusion. AGK [•] 12:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. AGK  [•] 12:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. The only statement that I see in the article even asserting any notability is that it claims it is the first feature documentary to use CGI nudity. I an unable to verify that statement from the source because of my ignorance of the language of the source; but, even so, that is not enough to make it notable. It is possible that it may someday become notable; but, until that time, the article should not be here. WTucker (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice toward recreation in a few months if it gains the expected coverage. The article was deleted last December as being premature: being then-unreleased, it lacked coverage, commentary, or analysis in independent secondary sources. But it was finally released to film festivals just this last March, and is now beginning to receive attention due to its controversial topic and title.  This is a strong indicator that it may gain decent sourcability due to its topic, but for now, it is still a bit too soon.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, but can we get a volunteer to userfy this? (I don't want to, but that's because I'm afraid I'll forget to recreate it if/when it should be). Otherwise, I agree in full with Schmidt. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... I'll take it under my wing if no one else cares to. As the film has been released, and is receiving positive response at festivals, all that is required is to remove inappropriate sources, track down those proper ones which speak toward the documentary (IE: for example), improve the article acccordingly, and bring it back in better shape that when userfied.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:28, 11 May 2012 (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.