Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Jihad (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. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Atomic Jihad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Jihad Stats )

Delete: This article fails WP:NF, as it is not a notable film deserving of its own article.

- The article is the work of a single editor, who contributed the article's entire content during a one-week period in December 2012.

- That lone editor, Bonkers the Clown, appears to have been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia in 2014.

- This article was first nominated for deletion by AbstractIllusions within days of its creation, and the main reason given for tentatively keeping it was that it was new, but that it needed substantial improvement. But in the nearly *four years* since then, the article not only hasn't been improved, it hasn't even been touched except for a couple of hyperlink cleanups and a promptly-deleted attempt at vandalism.

In terms of the specific WP:NF guidelines, it fails on every count:

1) It was a direct-to-DVD release produced by the director's own production company. The film has ZERO reviews by nationally-known critics; the only two reviews cited in the article are from a blogger and a user-submitted Finnish source (and which merited being deleted even if the article itself isn't, due to lack of notability, and which in turn will leave the article with virtually no content at all).

2) It is not historically notable. There's been nothing non-trivial written about the film since its release. The three non-review resources listed are a promotional interview with the director, and two articles about the director's other endeavors that merely mention this film's title in passing.

3) It hasn't received any awards at all.

4) It's not part of any historical archive.

5) There's no evidence that it's part of any curriculum at any school.

The only plausible ground for notability is that the director is notable. However, 'Atomic Jihad' is not a major part of his career, and as the WP:NF guidelines state, a separate page should only be created if it would clutter up the biography page. And there's only one or two sentences' worth of actual content here, the equivalent of nothing more than a promotional blurb. Lorencollins (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't even come close to passing gng. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect via to the film's author, Joel Gilbert, is more appropriate than outright deletion, considering that the film does exist in reliable sources as passing mentions. It only fails GNG on the significant coverage criterion, that would warrant a stand-alone article. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has long passed its chance for a tune-up, and four years is ample time to wait before deciding that the article really can't be improved. It's also more than enough time to measure if the article's subject receives consistent, continued coverage, which it hasn't and it never received significant coverage to begin with. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect, though I prefer deletion as the first option. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2016 (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.