Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter to the President


 * 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   delete. the sources advanced have been examined and don't appeart to cut the mustard. Keep votes by assertion carry very lightle weight in contrast Spartaz Humbug! 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Letter to the President

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. The subject is nonnotable, as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, or any major reviews or a wide theatrical release.

See also Articles for deletion/Bloody Island (documentary), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of the Underground: The Dramatic Journey of UGK, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss & Tail: The Hollywood Jumpoff, and Articles for deletion/Thomas Gibson (film director) for other articles created from this bid.  Them From  Space  15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep if notability can be established. It should be possible given the number of well-known people involved in the project. The motivation of the article's creation should not be a reason to delete, if WP is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit." Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability has not yet been established as the film hasn't been covered in-depth by reliable sources.  Them From  Space  19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - a quick search reveals no significant coverage by reliable sources that would make this documentary pass WP:NFILM.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Found sources. Added some to the article. Am not impressed by the film's content though, as there are two opposite poles opining... proponents who praise the unfounded opinions by the uninformed interviewees and opponents who point out that the interviewees were offering unsupported opinion and that the filmmaker himself did not provide accurate statistics.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only one of those sources that would appear to help with the NFILM requirements is the second (and only if you believe that David Cornelius is a notable enough reviewer). The NYT movies section is just a cataloge entry, there isn't any reporting done there. The politicalmediareview review is from a college student.  The last source is from an OP-ed "citizen journalist".  Them  From  Space  17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't say I was very impressed, and my "keep" is weak. Felt I needed to include the "positive" reviews for some sort of balance in a crtitcal response section, though I would just as soon have left those out. As for David Cornelius, he is a veteran writer, critic, and member on the Online Film Critics Society, currently writing for eFilmCritic, Hollywood Bitchslap, and DVD Talk, so he has the genre expertise and experience to be considered relibale enough for what he is saying about the film.  That he does not have his own article is not a negative.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that he doesn't have an article doesn't mean that he's nonnotable. What I meant by the David Cornelius aside was that the criterion in NFILM about a "nationally known" critic is vague and open to interpretation.  Them  From  Space  20:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes... they can't all be Roger Ebert. And the attribute "nationally known" is not a required criteria, but acts rather as an encouragement to seek sources.  His credentials in being a member of Online Film Critics Society and writing for reliable genre source DVD Talk do show suitable expertise, and his review would anyway fall under the criteria of "full-length magazine reviews and criticism" (online).  Now if only some of the film's proponents had even the least amount of credibility...  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

*Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep while I am loath to appear to condone paid-for editing, the NYT ref alone establishes notability. If we had a policy prohibiting this sort of thing, I would certainly support it, and !vote delete here. But alas, we have treat this as if written by a good-faith volunteer. The Interior (Talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - The coverage is not sufficient for me to say keep. Note that the NY Times item is not an article or review from the NY Times.  It is licensed content from All Movie Guide.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note about NYT film listings... they are created by the Times subsidiary InBaseline, a subsidary set up by the Times and just as dedicated to fact-checking and accuracy as the news sections of the Times itself. That they chose to include a licensed review from Allmovie, a review independent from the film, just means they're doing their job in informing their own readers. The independent review written by David Cornelius of Online Film Critics Society is more convincing for me, with the NYT/Allmovie stuff being supportive.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - I won't dispute that the material from All Moview Guide as used in the NY Times online site is likely reasonably accurate. However, all they have done is licensed the AllMoviewGuide so they can populate their online movie directory.  They have not made any editorial decision on what moviers to include.  It's a pure feed of information, and as such provides no notability.  For example, look at this entry.  It's completely devoid of any information beyond the title and running time.  Does that look like editorial oversight tin the selection of content?  -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All that one looks like is a verification that is far stronger and more reliable than what is proferred by IMDB. The Cornelius review is what has kept my support. I am not too impressed by the supportive review by "citizen jounalist" Rady Ananda, as she does not have the established film genre credentials or credibility as does Cornelius... but as an activist, she does have "some".  The credentials of Political Media Review have yet to be determined as they have only been around since 2009 and they seem to be an opinion-centered publication set up as a self-proclaimed "independent reviewing clearinghouse for social justice media". Sounds too politcially left to be neutral.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is established by the number of references in RS, the well-documented controversial nature of the film, and the huge number of notable individuals associated with it. Qworty (talk) 03:53, 13 January 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.