Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Sky


 * 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. John254 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Arizona Sky

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability concerns, previously speedied, then recreated, then tagged as speedy, then hangon'd. Really needs at least some discussion. Prodego talk  03:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator should do his homework.  Pepe Machao (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The first source for the article, the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival, I don't even think this kind of festival is notable enough. While other movies that did get other press coverage were shown here, such as "Food of Love" in 2002, I don't see much for this movie. No other confirmed showings. Second, the the article that reviewed this belonged to a "TWIT Magazine." I looked for the article and I don't see even 200 search results for just the publication. The third source, I looked at and it seems it was reviewed by a Jason Buchanan from AllMovie. Looking farther, it is just a brief notation of the plot and they do that to every film that comes out. They even comment on stuff that isn't films, so having a review by AllMovie isn't that special. It also had an IMDB entry, but they are like Wikipedia to a degree and willing to accept information on all kinds of films from anyone with a pulse. In short, not enough has come out about this film in the terms of reception and just being on IMDB and a small time movie festival isn't enough to establish notability to the film. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are you saying that Wikipedia accepts information "from anyone with a pulse"?  IF so, why are you saying Wikipedia should delete the article? Pepe Machao (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe that the film is notable in that it was presented at the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival. Wikipedia should be inclusive of all information for the entire internet. I submit that "notability" is an ambiguous concept that is subject to relative opinion. User Zscout370's arguments might warrant the deletion of many films on this website. I dispute his high threshold of "notability"--JRiverton (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was notified the movie just came out a month ago. I personally believe that this issue should be revisited in 6 months. That should give it enough time for more reviews, festivals, etc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question for ZSCout. We want to know WHO "notified" you, WHEN you were notified, and BY WHAT MEANS this heretofore anonymous "notifier" used.  You should understand how potentially scandalous your sudden change of heart can appear.  Thank you. Pepe Machao (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember to assume good faith per WP:CIVIL. He "source" aside, he is correct.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's the reason my first response to the OP was that the OP should do his homework. But I just think its odd that Z-Scout made it sound like he got a 3am phone call filling him in on the movie, or something along those lines. Pepe Machao (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he did. Whatever the cause, he reconsidered his opinion and decided that the article deserves a chance to prove itself... so I'll choose not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I am much happier seeing an editor that has the courtesy to rethink an opinion than one who can never be swayed no matter what. As it is, and before responding here, I did some tweaks to the article to address an overly long plot section and added a few more sources. I think it passes now and will only get better with time. Merry Christmas.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep--It has received significant coverage and is widely distributed. --Jmundo (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Just gave the article a cleanup per film MOS. It meets the standards set per film notability through the general notability guidelines.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and applaud nominator for doing the right thing and bringing this to AFD for a resolution tot he ongoing argument of whether this should be deleted or not. Remember folks, AFD is not a battle between two parties, it is a discussion among wikipedians.  Let's try to keep this in mind before lainching hand-grenades at at eachother, ok?  As for this article, the subject has only been produced a few months and only released for 1 month, and yet it has received very wide acclaim, and has been sponsored by a very noteworthy festival.  It is listed in Eric Clapton's favorite movies of all time, and has been covered in numerous reliable sources.  NOt bad for a one-month old movie.  As Zscout says, this canbe re-reviewed in 6 months to make sure it was not a flash-in-the pan knd of thing, but deletion right now seems obtuse.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:59, 27 December 2008 (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.