Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Matters


 * 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 defaulting to Keep, leaning strongly towards keep with the new sources found at the end of this discussion. Please add sources to the article. Davewild (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Brooklyn Matters

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

Non-notable film. Can't find an entry for it on IMDB, it doesn't have any references and has no incoming links. Lugnuts (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - no reliable sources to indicate that this documentary is notable. No indication of awards or other types of critical recognition. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - based on one solid reliable source, I think it would be appropriate to give it a bit more time to see if other sources can be dug up to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails all notability guidelines for films. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – I am sorry, but the New York Daily News reviewed the Documentary as shown here . The ALM Research credits the film as shown here  and People's Weekly World posted an extensive article as shown here .  I believe that is enough 3rd party – independent – creditable and reliable sources to establish notability.  Thanks Shoessss |  Chat  23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the first reference seems to be a passing reference to the movie.  I can't read the ALM article as I don't want to spend $15, however searching for the title of the film shows an excerpt that would indicate that it is only a passing mention.  The third reference is an actual review of the movie. -- Whpq (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Reviewing sources above, this does not meet our notability standard. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – Our Notability Standards!  Please, and what would that be today?   So we should just throw away information?  After the sites provided above demonstrate that, the film has received secondary and third source reviews?  I am sorry, I disagree.   Shoessss |  Chat  01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It was also spoken about extensively at the Brian Lehrer's NYPC Radio Show. The article was, not too unsurprisingly, reviewed in The Brooklyn Paper, as the documentary seems to have raised high emotions in Brooklyn . The Gotham Gazette also treats it . You judge.--Aldux (talk) 21:12, 29 February 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.