Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escape from Suburbia: Beyond the American Dream


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Escape from Suburbia: Beyond the American Dream

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable, unreviewed, undiscussed documentary. Fails WP:MOVIE, fails WP:GNG. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep and fix... an addressable issue. The film has screened on television and at film festvals, and to disagree with the nominator on a couple points, it WAS reviewed and has been discussed in reliable sources, including Straight Canada.com Press Herald and other sources available through subscription.  Is it the most notable indie documentary ever? Nope. Does it have enough coverage to tweak at WP:NF and allow that it can be improved so that a neutral and properly sourced article can be maintained? Yes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fix or Delete - set a period of time for this article to be fixed per the comments above. If it does not improve then delete. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please consider WP:DEADLINE, WP:UGLY, WP:NOEFFORT, and WP:SOFIXIT. While appreciating your desire that a weak article on a notable topic must be fixed within some arbitrarily set period of of time or else it be deleted if work by others is not done, AFD is not the place for such ultimatums. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. It is on my list though of things I am willing to do as real world events allow the time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Update: Setting different search parameters has resulted in finding additional sources for this film. In response to User:Jrcrin001 and having the time, I returned to the article and performed additional cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.  Yes, the stub first nominated was in poor shape, but needing iprovements was itself impetus enough to do so. As issues have proven addressable, I have moved above from "Weak keep" to "Keep".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment While I stand by my nomination and still think the film's not notable, I have to say that I agree with MichaelQSchmidt here about the time limit. The film is either notable or not, and reasonable people can disagree on that.  It's independent of the state that the article is in at any given moment in time.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdraw&mdash;MQS convinces me with the newly added sources, which were beyond my ability to discover. This does clearly meet the GNG.  I'd close it myself, but I don't believe that's allowed if there's a delete on the page.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as that editor stated "improve or delete", implicit in his comment was a "keep if improved". I do not think your closing would raise any eyebrows.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:43, 11 August 2012 (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.