Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Survived BTK


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 06:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I Survived BTK

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced article about a non-notable movie. The article contains a lot of trivia about its making, but it sounds as if the film itself was shown at a handful of festivals and then released to television. If the film meets WP:MOVIE, the article certainly doesn't help to make the case. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm going to try cleaning the article first to get all of the puffery out of it. There are some reviews for it, but this article is just a knock down, dragged out mess. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional: It looks like it was originally released under the name "Feast of Assumption", so I'm finding more hits under that than under the newer name.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Keep. It was shown on the Documentary Channel and has been reviewed by several reliable sources, although most of the reviews are from its film festival days. I trimmed a lot of stuff from the page. The review section was especially dubious considering that I wasn't able to find many of the reviews and the ones that I did find weren't nearly as positive as the quotes made it out to seem. There was some definite cherry picking going on there. Some of what I've taken out was done because it was either trivia or it had no reliable and independent sources to back it up. It's still a rough article but it's definitely in better shape than it was.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Comment. I've reason to believe that the original editor was someone who was involved in the film, mostly from them having written the IMDb page for the film. I would highly encourage them to see assistance through WikiProject Film when it comes to making any new additions to the article rather than directly editing it themselves. You can edit even if you have a conflict of interest, but it's highly discouraged because it's so difficult to be neutral because you want to promote your film in the best light possible. Please be careful because it's these instincts that lead the article to be nominated for deletion in the first place, as the article's original state wasn't organized or well-sourced.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - by reliable sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The "unreferenced" criticism no longer applies. "Non-notable movie" was never a legitimate criticism; this film was aired on a national network in the United States; it's not an amateur movie that someone is trying to advertise on Wikipedia. Although I agree with Tokyogirl79 about possible COI, recent improvements have dealt with that problem as long as the creator of the article doesn't continue trying to promote the film. 174.99.123.164 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AKA:
 * AKA:


 * Keep per article improvements readily showing the topic as being notable per the applicable guideline. With the greatest of respects to the nominator, the article's original state was more a reason to seek sources which spoke toward the film than it was to delete because it had not yet been done. Though always helpful, an article need not show available sources, just so long as they exist.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:07, 11 March 2012 (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.