Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve of Destruction (miniseries)


 * 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Eve of Destruction (miniseries)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Deprodded with claims of sources, but they all turned out to be false positives. Only one hit on ProQuest, all GBooks hits were for unrelated content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Review at Radio Times  Donald D23   talk to me  19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The reviewer game the film a one-star review. The review notes: "A tiny plot is stretched beyond breaking point in this interminably dull and slow-paced disaster movie in which a prospective new power source has deadly repercussions. Favouring unnecessary padding over character and story development, the cut-down TV mini-series ends up mainly talk and no drama, as boffins Steven Weber and Christina Cox seem to bore even themselves ..."  Based on the discussion in Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47, DVD Talk is a reliable source. The author of the piece is a member of the Online Film Critics Society according to his biography. The review notes: "Beattie's screenplay also stumbles when it comes to character drama. One of the big scenes in the film is two female scientists sniping at each other about sleeping their way up the corporate ladder, which is lazy and plays to stereotypes in all of the worst ways. The script avoids moral complexity by lifting the true responsibility for the destruction off of Karl and Sarah's shoulders, giving that work to a more villainous character that the audience is free to dislike. ... Director Robert Lieberman is fine at delivering spectacle with clarity, but some of his decisions are strange and detract from the tension. One of the most baffling is his decision to reveal a bit of information right before the break between the two halves of the show that would create tension had he left it ambiguous."  The review notes: "I won’t pretend to fully (or much less than partially) understand the science behind it all, but it’s undoubtedly a topic ripe for the disaster-movie pickings. ReelzChannel gets the ball rolling with the two-part Eve of Destruction, which stars Steven Weber (Wings) as Karl Dameron, a brilliant but singular-minded physicist who — along with his partner Rachel Bannister (Christina Cox) — is thisclose to realizing his dream of creating a machine that will “harvest a limited pool of dark energy, and serve to power our world forever.”"  The review notes: "Eve of Destruction (2013) is a disaster movie, and it’s the worst kind of disaster movie: a shot-for cheap, Canadian, made-for-TV, two-part mini-series, starring people who were moderately famous more than ten years ago, disaster movie. ... There’s a lot of good actors in this. Steven Weber, Christina Cox, Treat Williams, even American Mary and Ginger Snaps’ Katherine Isabelle turns up in decent sized role as one of the eco terrorists. ... The plot alternates between nonsensical psuedo-science and soap opera bullshit and neither one does much to captivate attention. ... Eve of Destruction is a classic example of one of the worst sub-genres of junk-food TV that people only watch when there aren’t Ice Road Truckers reruns on for some reason." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eve of Destruction to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where the hell do you find this stuff? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

</ul>
 * I de-prodded because there were many sources, but it immediately came here anyway. Thank you Cunard for laying some of them out so we can see it meets GNG. Keep. Jacona (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per sources identified by Cunard. Donald D23   talk to me  17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GNG passed with sources found by Cunard, along with Broadway World & Albuquerque Journal. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)''</b> 21:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.