Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innocence of Muslims


 * 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 Speedy keep.  Ja Ga  talk 18:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocence of Muslims

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This film, and more accurately, the part of the film that has received media coverage (a YouTube trailer) do not meet the basic notability requirements for having a dedicated article on the film. Per WP:Notability (films) "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of trivial coverage include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides". Coverage of this movie so far falls clearly within the "trivial coverage" definition.

Furthermore, it does not meet other specific criteria for notability as set for in WP:Notability (films). To the contrary, it is not "widely distributed" (it has only been screened in its entirety one time!); it has not "received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Nor is it historically notable, firstly because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and secondly because it does not meet any of the historically notable criteria in the notability guideline which require a time lapse of at least 5 years since the movie's initial release, a major award for excellence, preservation in a national archive or being taught as a subject at a university with a recognized film program. Adequate notations regarding the film can be entered in other articles related to negative views on Islam, attacks on US embassies and the bio of a notable person who was murdered. In short, this movie fails notability in many ways and should be deleted. KeptSouth (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * AYFKM? There are all kinds of top line references talking about this film. The New York Times is linking to excerpts.  Time Entertainment is discussing it.  Once obscure but now absolutely notable and worth covering. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Where in the article do you see "newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides"? This article is the exact opposite of that. Though Notability (films) says there should be a five year lapse, WP:GNG doesn't require that, and it would be silly for us to put a five year embargo on creating this article in light of yesterday's events. The crystal ball argument also makes no sense to me, since the film triggered fatal attacks yesterday, and has gotten significant coverage as a result of it, so the impact is in the past, not future. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. WP:RS attesting to notability are now global and overwhelming. Qworty (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, after a few days of viewing the trailer, there has been a lot of unrest, and an american embassador killed, as well as 3 other people. I do not think WP:Notability (films) applies here, the issue is not about the film, it is about what that film is stirring up. GastelEtzwane (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The entire world, including the president of the United States in talking about this film and it's repercussions. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 18:51, 12 September 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.