Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flywheel (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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Flywheel (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No assertion of notability. No Rotten Tomatoes reviews, and includes no mainstream sources other than Time Magazine (which isn't even an article about this film, it's an article about a later film by this director which mentions Flywheel in passing). Article was also spammed with trivia and promotional content before a brief cleanup. SuaveArt (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – An article does not need Rotten Tomatoes page to be notable. Many sources are available upon a little research.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 04:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No Rotten Tomatoes reviews is just a brief indication of this article's lack of notability. The lack of any real coverage outside passing mentions (such as the Time mention, which was an article about Fireproof, not Flywheel and only briefly mentioned that the director had previously made this film) establishes it's overall lack of notability for me.--SuaveArt (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete references are provided, but only trivially mention this movie. ~ DC (Talk&#124;Edits) 08:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Delete. No significant coverage in mainstream sources; what sources we have are biased simply because of the subject matter so cannot be depended on for an independent evaluation of the film's significance. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per JzG. --John (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article could use improvement, but this is no ground to outright delete it. Filmcom (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete very local release. no actual notability  DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as part of walled garden. No significant coverage. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After revisiting the latest information provided here, I'm not convinced deletion is the correct action. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – There are dozens of mainstream sources available for this. More than 300,000 copies sold. Rotten Tomatoes isn't a requirement for WP:FN.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 17:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide an example of mainstream sources? Additionally, according to the sources in the article, only 34,000 DVDs were sold. Where did you find 300,000? -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several found in the article, and others are available here. I'm not sure about the number of copies. Time magazine (October 3, 2008) says that, "Flywheel got a local theatrical release and a pickup by Blockbuster Video, and went on to sell more than 200,000 DVDs." However, Baptist Press (September 26, 2006) said, "Since its release on DVD, Flywheel has sold 32,000 copies..." Obviously, Flywheel sold 150,000+ copies in the two years between each of the sources' publications. I can't remember where I got 300,000 copies, so I've lowered it to 200,000. Thanks for noticing that.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't remember where I got 300,000 copies". Doubtful. My guess is that you intentionally lied just to try to boost the popularity of this film (which is pretty sad when you think about it, since that's the very type of thing that this film speaks out against). Just more reason why this AFD was useful, you love to insert spam and dubious claims into these articles when you think no one is looking. I'll be keeping an eye on your edits for awhile, because I no longer trust your claims of innocence. --SuaveArt (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, you've broken WP:AGF, but I'll ignore that. Why would I change "200,000 copies" to "300,000 copies"? It doesn't make any sense. Selling 1/3 more copies isn't exactly something to lie over, and I certainly didn't. I probably just made a typo, and I promote I did not intentionally alter the info. You may follow my edits if you wish, but Wikihounding, per se, is not allowed.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find significant coverage. However, in the interest of being neutral, the comment "winning awards at several film festivals" is curious; I would like to have more information on just what those awards are. They may be sufficient to establish notability. Unfortunately, the sources do not elaborate. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on the sources provided I will revoke my delete !vote in favor of a more neutral position. I am not yet convinced that WP:MOVIE is met, as only one of the provided sources seems to be a "nationally known critic" for purposes of criterion #1, and the other criteria are not met at all, however the aspect of potentially meeting significant coverage overall, with disregard to WP:MOVIE, is significant enough for me to feel this article may meet the guidelines should it be touched up with independent, reliable sources. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With respects, those "criteria" are not mandates, only attributes that if present would suggest a more diligent look for sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, which is exactly why I made the decision that I did :) WP:GNG is not overruled by the other, more specific guidelines. They are just specific interpretations. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Reviewed by Christian Broadcasting Network, and the All Movie Guide (as found on the New York Times) . Novelization by Thomas Nelson (publisher), . According to its own website, " received a 4-Dove review from the Dove Foundation and received a strong review from MOVIEGUIDE magazine; it aired on TBN; it won Best Feature at San Francisco's WYSIWYG Film Festival; and it was chosen favorite film by festival attendees at the Sabaoth International Film Festival in Milan, Italy." Here is its listing on Trinity Broadcasting Network . Here are the awards it won: Christian WYSIWYG Film Festival 2004	Best Feature Film, ICVM Crown Awards 2004	Bronze Crown	 Best Evangelistic Film, Gold Crown	 Best Screenplay, Silver Crown	 Best Drama under $250,000, Sabaoth International Film Festival, 2004 Adam Award, Best Screenplay, Best Production, Parable Award  Yes, these are mostly Christian sources and Christian festivals, but we shouldn't discriminate against them because of that. --GRuban (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some of these sources/information into the article.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep In addition to all that the above poster wrote, Flywheel is currently in 4,500 Blockbuster video stores across North America. Thousands of churches in the US and internationally show Flywheel regularly as an outreach tool. Sherwood Pictures receives hundreds of e-mails each week from people sharing how the movies have touched their life. In fact they have received e-mails weekly since April of 2003 from those impacted by Flywheel. It is true that many people did not hear about Flywheel until they saw Facing the Giants or Fireproof. But after finding out about the movie they were very eager to purchase the film and find out more about it (Wikipedia being one of the tools to research Flywheel). Since Flywheel premiered in 2003, many of the published articles about it have been taken down. It was heavily covered by local media in the Albany area and surrounding counties. Many people still visit the sites in Albany that were used for the movie (Jimmy's Hot Dog, Car Lot). Sherwood Picture' focus is to reach the world with the gospel. This may be seen as some as not being "notable", but in the religious markets Flywheel is still a best seller and highly notable."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.174.146 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , (includes list of awards),, and . Joe Chill (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't understand the reason that the Flywheel (film) article is being deleted. According to Wikipedia standards there is a list of reasons that the page could be deleted. But, what is the specific reason, so editors can focus on improving that? Editors are now encouraged to revise and update the page; but, what if that isn't the reason the page is being deleted? So, people of good will spend countless amounts of time to improve/upgrade the page, but then it's axed anyway. What's that, then? I'm asking for a specific reason some entity wants to delete the page, because I see nothing wrong with the page, at all! So what if Flywheel (film) is a niche page, even if it's a very small niche. There's nothing wrong with that. Not every subject is going to appeal to everyone. Unscientifically, that probably has to be true for most of the subjects posted on Wikipedia. Supposedly admins delete 5,000 bad Wiki articles a day? Where? Anyone whose been on Wikipedia for any length of time has seen too many articles to number with countless negative citations on them. Yet, they're still posted, some for years. But, Flywheel (film) has none of that. So, I really believe that the reason that this page is being deleted (It's a done deal. All this here is just a formality.) is because of some special interest group with an anti-Christian-message bias. Maybe the special interest group is car dealers who don't want to be portrayed in the light they're portrayed in, in the film. Canihaveacookie Talk, January 9, 2010; 12:15 (UTC-6)
 * It's actually not a "done deal"; the "vote" count is in favor of keeping, including the last four users.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 19:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The primary reason is for a lack of meeting the notability guidelines, which I am still on the fence about. I'm still leaning towards delete, despite the fact that many people have cited various sources, primarily because I am not convinced they meet the guidelines of a reliable source (I will address that in a moment). That being said, other articles existing (or not existing) is not an argument for deletion or inclusion. The fact that it's a niche page is irrelevant; there are many niche pages which still satisfy the general notability guideline. This one, however, I haven't yet seen as meeting those guidelines. I would like to see an independent source with significant coverage on the topic. I am currently going through User:Joe Chill's sources now to see what they contain. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Canihaveacookie: Call me cynical; but, whatever! Talk January 9, 2010; 14:10 (UTC-6)


 * Keep If a major news source no one is doubting says that the film sold hundreds of thousands of copies, then its notable.  D r e a m Focus  20:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; This film is notable enough. I ran a google search for 'flywheel (film)' and got about 37,000 results, which means that people would probably look for it on Wikipedia as well. Invmog (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry; typo; it was 317,000 google results, not 37,000. Invmog (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Nominator's reasoning is flawed (so what if there's not a Rotten Tomatoes entry?) and erroneous (there are plenty of RS found by searching the Google News archives here). Seregain (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per improvements made since flawed nomination and lack of diligent WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator (whom I would caution about WP:CIVIL). Even when first nominated the article made assertions of notability. Further, and beyond its awards, it has mainstream coverage even though of greatest interest to a Christian-genre filmgoers, and meets WP:NF per WP:GNG. In consideration of notability for Christians, WP:CSB also applies to religious bias.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Far more inline citations than needed to establish notability.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep watched this movie more than 15 times will continue doing so when ever I go in a valley this movie is inspiring and I can stand up again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.28.141.104 (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEPThis movie should receive more publicity than it has. It's based on the most basic of moral values--Honesty.  More of the world needs to be reminded of how simple acts of kindness and goodness and honesty can change not only them, but the world around them as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.229.153 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Flywheel is one of my family's favorite films! It represents something that we need a great deal more of, truly family films that families can enjoy together without having to worry in the least about what might appear on the screen next. We need more studios, like Sherwood Pictures, that will stand up and say we want to work along side families and support them through films that will inspire and shape them morally with strong family values. We need to raise awareness of films like this to send the message that this what families want. Please KEEP Flywheel on Wikipedia so that it may continue to be enjoyed by others as it has been enjoyed by me and my family! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.193.198 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment; Do y'all think that we now have enough people who have voted 'Keep' (the ones with reliable reasons and reliable sources) to close this deletion discussion? Invmog (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (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.