Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell's Bells: The Dangers of Rock 'N' Roll


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hell's Bells: The Dangers of Rock 'N' Roll

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find anything that meets our criteria at Notability (films). No Rotten Tomato reviews, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve per meeting WP:NF through coverage, analysis, and commentary in multiple book. I am not swayed that this film did not make headlines, nor that Rotten Tomatoes does not list Christian reviews of a Christian film. Reminds me a little of something like The Atomic Cafe, another "classic" documentary whose views are now seen as hilarious... but in this case one whose reviews and sources will more likely than not found only in Christian film review sources and books... and the multiple book coverage meets the requirements of WP:NF.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Question What multiple book coverage? And why are you suggesting finding sources on a different film? Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found some sources just at first glance and I found mention of it in an academic text. In any case even if I can't find another source, there's enough on the article now to show notability. It's a small film but it does seem to have a cult following and was considered to be an important example of how music was seen in religious lights by some of the more conservative persons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I was wondering if I should withdraw this until I looked at the sources. First, let me repeat what our guidelines say:"The kinds of sources that are considered independent are those that have covered topics unrelated to the one at hand, such as periodicals. Books that discuss a film in a larger context or among other films are also potential sources; see this section's last paragraph regarding the amount of coverage in a source. Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent." and "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides". Christian Film Guide fails as insufficient to fully establish notablity. The Phoenix New Times link is to its events calendar, and fails for that reason. It shouldn't even be used in the article where its 2 short paragraphs make up almost half the article (I suspect using this much, besides failing WP:UNDUE, may be copyvio, but I'll check). And the book Baby Boomer Rock 'n' Roll Fans: The Music Never Ends doesn't even mention the film although it is used as a source for the article. This seems to leave us with two sources, both I think probably meeting our criteria at WP:RS, Filmmaker (magazine) and Pitchfork Media. Maybe that would be enough to meet notability, but Filmmaker is actually just reproducing part of the article by Deusner, so it isn't really a 2nd source. This leaves us with only one reliable source with significant coverage, and I'm not sure that's enough. I am sure that if the article stays that we need to represent what Deusner actually says much better than we do now. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2013 (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) 02:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2013 (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.