Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman


 * 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. Note from closer: Kudos on the improvements, thanks. j⚛e deckertalk 06:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a contested prod. I stumbled on this article during Random page patrol and it appears to be a non-notable political documentary. Per WP:NOTFILM a film either needs to meet the WP:GNG through multiple reliable independent sources or it needs to be presumptively notable in absence of such sources (see the guideline for a full list; no evidence this film meets any of them). I found five sources in WP:HIGHBEAM which mentioned this film by name and none were more than passing mention save a partisan review by Thaddeus McCotter, which is neither reliable nor independent. A site search of news.google.com for "Fire from the Heartland" did not produce any hits. There are plenty of contemporary mentions (see this from Politico), but no lasting coverage. Anything Bachmann did in 2010 would acquire this kind of passing coverage. It might be possible to merge this into Citizens United (organization) or Michele Bachmann, but the former merely contains a list of movies and the latter, despite being lengthy, neither discusses this film nor links to it. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've done some cleaning and moved the sources into the article, but so far I'm not finding much else. I did find a BlogHer post, but I don't think it'd be usable since it's not by a staff member as far as I can tell. I left it just in case someone else wants to take a look at it, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Short title:
 * Director, writer:
 * Topic:
 * Cinematographer:
 * Production:


 *  Weak Keep Aside from finding coverage in Andrew Breitbart's conservative news and opinion website Breitbart.com, and by conservative Amy Ridenour in BlogHer,, and in her own blog, I found an article in Des Moines Register, and it was spoken of in Washington Post, The Atlantic, Politico, Cagle Post,  Daily Caller,   Fox News, and others found through Wayback Machine searches.   This will never have the coverage and public attention of Star Wars, but it seems that the WP:GNG requirements of WP:NF are met.  What say, Tokyogirl79?  And pardon nominator, but please read WP:NTEMP. Appreciating that it does seem you looked, we do not require "lasting coverage", and the film subject need not be the sole focus of any source.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as per . Sources listed above constitute multiple independent nontrivial reliable and meet the WP:GNG even if the current article has issues.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Good job on finding more sources, guys! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Although Breitbart.com is certainly not a reliable source, I think this film is notable. Keep'. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG from footnotes already showing in the piece. It is really that simple. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Kudos to and  for article improvements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2014 (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.