Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late One Night


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Late One Night

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Film is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Dkchana (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as WP:JNN is a poor deletion rationale, multiple reliable sources are available with due diligence, and nominator's well-meant nomination shows a misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines. Also, nom's recent spat of prods and noms being directed at Christian-related topics is quite worrisome.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. No indication that nominator has done any due diligence and his edits exhibit a pattern that puts good faith to the test.  There are plenty of sources found by |google but I don't have time to sort out which ones are reliable enough to include in the article.  Eluchil404 (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It's notable and it is sourced. Invmog (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into a Christiano brothers filmography article, with existing content. I think we should admit that this one is not covered enough in enough independent sources - not even Christian media or quality blogs. After some pretty exhaustive searching, the only full review so far doesn't seem to be a widely known publication, and it's not at all clear if the film was ever "widely distributed" or if it was ever shown in theaters. No press releases about DVD sales, or showings to be found. I found only one mention, a (church notice of a morning showing during a church service. Even the YouTube rip only has 885 views. I'll switch to keep if even one significant verifiable independent RS is found; it can even be offline! --Lexein (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep fully meets WP:GNG, it is properly citated and descriptive, and I feel it does fully meet the requirements for WP:MOVIE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix B 1of3 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 October 2011‎


 * Speedy keep: It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. May well require a chat/warning from an admin, but not necessarily a block. History2007 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2011 (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.