Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deviance in modern film


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Deviance in modern film

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

essay Postcard Cathy (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post your homework. Also, its very soapy and full of POV. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 00:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think this could be very informative if it was fixed up a little to look less like an essay and more like an encyclopedia entry.  Anonymous  Talk  01:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * delete. This already seems to be covered at Media violence research and Media influence... fragmented articles leads to poorer articles. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No need for an essay with POV issues on a topic we already cover at Media violence research and Media influence. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The 5 given references are reliable and verifiable. The subject is interesting Rirunmot (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting and wiki worthy are two different things! There are many boring (IMO) articles here but they belong here.  I can write articles about interesting things that happened to me in my life but that doesn't mean they belong here.Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete for being WP:SOAP. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow, I never advocate delete, but this has to go. The core of the article -- both "deviance" and the use of film history -- is vague. The film history -- the only objective merit -- is often incorrect. Rest is soapy beyond belief.--Junius49 (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV-laden; soapbox; mis-representation through cherry-picking of the one scholarly article it draws from; clear personal essay. –Whitehorse1 22:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete subject to recreation from User space. It might become a useful article after a lot of work, but it will need an essential re-write. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2009 (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.