Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyes Beyond Seeing


 * 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. The (narrow) consensus is that this film lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources.  Sandstein  11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Eyes Beyond Seeing
http://www.eyesbeyondseeing.com/about.html http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192006/


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

I can't find any reliable sources that shows the movie's notability on the first 11 pages of a Google Search, Movie Review Query Engine, Rotten Tomatoes, and Google News. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Comment: A New York Times link was added by an editor, but that doesn't show notability because it's just a mention. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. VG &#x260E; 00:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per improvements and citing I have done. However, if it goes, I won't cry.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per MichaelQSchmidt. miniluv (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Having a look at the sources contained within the article, I would doubt that any of them are reliable sources (even the NY times one, as movie notability guidelines say passing references don't count. Performing a quick google search, nothing outside of promotion/offical sites/discussion can be found and google news turns of no sources at all. Because of this, I believe the article lacks verifiability and fails movie notability guidelines. — ^.^ &#91;citation needed&#93; 12:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to change your mind but a Google news search finds 4 results. One of them is the recommendation from the NY Times. One of them looks like it's unrelated. miniluv (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are all mentions. It looks like it's gonna go. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can someone close this already? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to, but I already !voted. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 6 October 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.