Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Jihad


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Atomic Jihad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Film has no notable coverage and current article is just WP:Promotion. The two "reviews" are simply user generated content with no editorial oversight whatsoever on marginal blogs of no note. Could not find any other reviews of note. Fails WP:GNG on all accounts. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep Brand new article still being worked on. We may not agree on the truth or not of the film's subject matter or conclusions, but under its complete title, it has received analysis and commentary in enough sources to meet WP:NF. Article definitely needs more work though... but as it is new, it would seem sensible to let its author continue and not judge his work until it is complete.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I could care less about the politics of the film, I neither agree nor disagree with it (and won't see it). All I ask is for one reliable source to be added. I looked and couldn't find one anywhere and it isn't in the article currently. I would be happy to vote Keep if there was coverage in one reliable source. But right now the five sources are, in order: 1. A fringe blog which does not pass as a reliable source and is just an interview with the film maker (so probably not an independent source either), 2. A source where "Atomic Jihad" is discussed as merely another film by the author.  3. A source where "Atomic Jihad" is discussed as merely another film by the author. 4. Blogcritics/Overworked Mom which is not a reputable source, 5. and the Finnish source which is user-generated content and thus not a reliable source (and also distorted to only provide positive comments about the film when the author actually gives it 1.5 stars out of five--the lowest score the author gives any film). I hope I'm not drawing too high of a standard for coverage in one newspaper, or one reliable film blog, or even a political site with any editorial oversight (if there was a review on World Net Daily--which is not a reliable source--I'd vote keep just because of visibility). Three user generated blogs and two brief mentions with no content added don't pass any notability guidelines. I'll give as much time to develop the article as possible as soon as any reliable coverage is in the article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciating the contributions and work of the author of this brand new article, I will let him continue work, not judge it under current state, and keep my opinion that the new article is improvable and that under its full title we have enough, even if just barely, for NF to be met.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Michael Q Schmidt. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The film exists. Its author is notable; other work(s) by him are(is) notable (specifically, McCarthy mockumentary). This film is known on right-wing sites. WND is a notable conservative site, they publish stuff about this film and/or its author. I don't see reason why WP should try to omit stuff, it reeks of censorship. The article needs to be improved though. WillNess (talk) 18:04, 14 January 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.