Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam: What the West Needs to Know second nomination


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam: What the West Needs to Know
Non Notable Film. Has not progressed beyond a stub. Film has not been distributed and has only ever had one showing. No reason to keep. Irishpunktom\talk 12:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should be noted that this article has been through AfD before, found here. Pepsidrinka 12:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per my nomination. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Pepsidrinka 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to be a simple video recording of a conference, one of many thousands that are done every year. Unless there's some clear indication of notability it should be deleted. --Lee Hunter 13:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Why would you want to delete an article which provides information on a controlversial film? Notice who the 3 editors above all voted within the same 30 minutes of each other.--CltFn 13:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Would you mind explaining what that (i.e., the 3 editors voting within 30 minutes) has to do with anything? I for one did not get any message telling me to vote. I don't need to justify myself, but here goes. The article is on my watchlist. I looked at the difference link. I saw this. Wow, there must be some sort of conspiracy going on. You better watch out for the cabal. Pepsidrinka 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You said it, I didn't, why would you suggest such an outrageous possibility?.--CltFn 14:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you implying, kindly be explicit with your accusations. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since we're tracking meaningless information, note that the three editors who voted to keep also did so within about 30 minutes. Spooky. ;) . --Lee Hunter 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And if ";) .", "15:04", "10", "2006", and "(UTC)" are each counted as words, then there were exactly 30 words in your post! {shiver} Шизомби 15:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I need to be more explicit to CltFn and any other editor who didn't catch my sarcasm. The link I provided to cabal goes to WP:TINC, where if you go to TINC, you will see what that means. There is no cabal. Pepsidrinka 23:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and 51.3 editors voted within 139.271 square weeks, get real. Defunkier 13:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? I'm Confused --Irishpunktom\talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Im saying some random number of people voting in some random unit means nothing. Editors should vote based on the articles merit, not on their levels of paranoia (and no Im not accusing anyone of being paranoid) Defunkier 17:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I'm getting the impression from looking at the edit history that this article is listed for deletion because of "personal" reasons rather than "non-notable" reasons (especially since it's been listed for deletion by the same user twice - I do find it odd that after the first time it was listed for deletion the same user added a significant chunk of text about the synopsis two days later. Why would you add to an article you're proposing to delete?).  It's certainly not an Internet hoax or Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch was duped into, not only providing commentary for the film, but also placing an article on his website . ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 13:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An entry on the Jihad watch blog does not make th film notable. The fact is the film has only been shown once and has no distributor.  How is it possibly Notable? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it made it notable. I said "it's certainly not an Internet hoax..."  There was a comment on the Talk page of the article (near the bottom) suggesting that it may be. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "personal" reasons. This film is not even close to being notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Show me an example of any other movie on Wikipedia that has only been shown once? Kaldari 19:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has non-stub articles on four commentators (Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Walid Shoebat, and Srđa Trifković) from the film, yet an article about a film they have appeared in is not notable? ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct. No one has the Magic Touch of Notability. Melchoir 23:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I followed the links and watched the premiere video, and it seems like a smear job by the Religious Reich, for the Religious Reich. That alone doesn't disqualify it from inclusion on WP however.  But I'm not sure what the notability criteria for film is?  It did, verifiably, have a film festival showing.  However, it doesn't appear to be scheduled for further showings or release, and the official site hasn't been updated since January, and Alexa Internet's traffic ranking for the official site is: No Data.  I'm in the middle on this one, and need a pointer to film notability policies. Шизомби 13:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the "film festival" at which this video had its first and last showing is not in itself notable. It was more of an obscure political PR event than an actual film festival --Lee Hunter 14:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's true that would explain why the movie is not on the IMDb, since that would not qualify it for inclusion there AFAIK (and indeed it is not there). I reserve judgment still. Шизомби 14:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN. I believe the religious Reich commentary by the cutely-named Шизомби is a personal attack of the type disallowed under WP:NPA. I am not experienced in these things, but somebody tell me - can we spank him? What's the contemplated punishment here? Crzrussian 14:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - but only with some form of wet fish. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, by "by" I meant the filmmakers, and by "for" I meant the audience - I thought that was clear by my mentioning that right after having said I followed the links and watched the video. I didn't mean people on WP. Шизомби 14:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment only WP:NPA if you are part of the "Religious Reich". Kidding aside, WP:NPA only applies to personal attacks against another Wipedia user.  Шизомби's comments were not overly WP:CIVIL so feel free to spank him with said wet fish...--Isotope23 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So how much distribution has this film gotten? Any wide audience screenings or just the ex tempore one at a film festival (film makers walked up and demanded to show it)? "Original interviews, citations from Islamic texts, Islamic artwork, computer-animated maps, footage of Western leaders, and Islamic TV broadcasts" sounds like a guy with a camcorder and old TV clippings. Weregerbil 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Ter e nce Ong 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable as is only a video recording of a conference. Discussion on a blog doesn't make the film notable. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's noteable enough. Also the article is npov and gives the reader some genuine information re it's topic. -- Karl Meier 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That you Karl? - How is the film "noteable enough"?--Irishpunktom\talk 17:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It has recieved some media attention and has been screened at a major film festival. That's good enough for me. -- Karl Meier 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you source those claims? I don't see any evidence that is the case.--Isotope23 18:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "it has received some attention from bloggers and was shown at one obscure film festival". Kaldari 19:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Michnews.com is the opposite of media attention. They don't list their editorial staff, so presumably they don't have any; they're just a blog written by several people. And the film festival doesn't even have a Wikipedia page itself; how major can it be? Melchoir 23:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Karl Meier. Pecher Talk 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, documentary with no evidence of notability... "press coverage" appears to be largely relgated to conservative bloggers and it screened at a non-notable conservative film festival with no apparent plans to screen anywhere else.--Isotope23 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Ezeu 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. If the film gets wider distribution I'll reconsider. Kaldari 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete . Not notable enough . Discission on blogs....not a criterion for notability . Additionaly ,its a pool for POV edit warrings by people who created this article . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficient evidence of notability. Discussion on a couple of blogs - there are thousands of blogs out there. Needs to have some evidence of significant box office reach (significant for a documentary I mean) or wider importance. Average Earthman 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. --Khoikhoi 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not a problem. It has been reviewed by several independent sources. However, More citations would be heplful in establishing this fact.  Cdcon   21:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It has not been reviewed by any reliable sources. If you think it has, can you name one? Melchoir 23:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notabil. The contraversy makes it notable. ---J.Smith 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What controversy? You mean every single comment anybody on the plant makes about the West and Islam is notable? Or has this film itself created controversy, in which case can we have a cite for that? Average Earthman 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kaldari. Palmiro | Talk 00:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep it does look like its notable in some regards, and there's no reason not to keep it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think WP:V is a pretty good reason. Melchoir 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor production that appears to be shown once to an audience of undetermined size. Is there a controversy surrounding this film? Not mentioned in article, can't find with google. Weregerbil 12:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Karl Meier Zeq 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Jason (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --James 08:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No reliable sources providing independent secondary coverage = non-notable. Melchoir 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I used to think that this film should be considered notable, however, the fact that it only had one showing and there appears to be no way for anyone to ever see it again makes it non-notable. The film festival it was shown at appears to just be some right-wing event that is so out of the main-stream that it hardly qualifies as a real film festival.  There are no truly critical reviews of this film because it was only seen by a few conservatives. Nortonew 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Bill Levinson User:Bill Levinson 20:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand this vote. How can you keep (or delete something) per someone, and that someone be yourself? Second of all, your timestamp is complete off. That is the diff link, and it clearly shows he voted on March 13, 2006 at 17:34 (UTC). Pepsidrinka 19:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly there is no point in deleting films that have been shown at film festivals, particularly if they get talked about on the net. -- JJay 19:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * One "Film Festival"... that only happened once.--Isotope23 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Once is good enough for me. Think of how many films get made every year and how few get shown at film festivals. I'm in awe that these auteurs could take on a difficult subject like Islam and get it shown in a festival. When it happens again, wikipeida will be there as a source of encyclopedic coverage of this documentary. -- JJay 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it crystal balling to keep an article on a presently non-notable subject because it might resurface someday? Melchoir 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a bit POV to throw around adjectives like non-notable in a discussion like this? Is it non notable because you say so? Maybe it's notable because I say so. Maybe what matters and what underpinned my vote is that it was verifiably shown at a film festival. Now I'll hand the soapbox back to you -- JJay 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with POV on AfD, thank you. It is non-notable because there are no reliable sources that discuss the film, and therefore any commentary on it is unverifiable. The only borderline source is the worldnetdaily.com website, which mentions the film only in passing and provides no analysis. Finally, the phrase "film festival" means nothing to me. For all I know, in Hollywood all you need to do is play a few tapes in your parents' basement, and it's a film festival. The only way we can decide whether these things are worth covering is if other sources have already covered them, and they haven't. Now, let me ask: if we assume that the film is never screened again, and never mentioned again even on the Internet, would you still want to keep the article? Melchoir 00:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well considering they were just showing a few tapes in my parents' basement (not that my parents live in Hollywood but why quibble) they sure put a lot of money into the festival website. And they do of course prominently list the film in the screening schedule . Since you have already pointed to other sources I'll not search further. I will say I didn't know our role was to analyze films, in that case there are 195 flicks at Category:Television films that could use some attention, perhaps we should start with Scooby-Doo_in_Arabian_Nights. However, to answer your question that I previously answered (i.e. Once is good enough for me): Yes, if the film is never shown again, if all prints are burned in a giant auto-da-fe on Hollywood Boulevard, I would still want to keep the article. -- JJay 00:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then that is where we differ. I believe it is not our job to reward with a permastub nonarticle every brave group that promotes themselves on their own website and gets written about on one blog, and I hope the community agrees with that. Melchoir 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per JJay -- Aldux 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. -Huldra 04:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ingersoll 09:36, 14 March 2006 (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.