Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letters to God


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @229  · 04:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Letters to God

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable film, no reliable sources, not yet released, fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Orlando Sentinel is a reliable source with an article about the film.--kelapstick (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- kelapstick (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep even though Orlando helps, this does fall under WP:CRYSTAL... - Warthog Demon  20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - As the article says: "there is no major distribution deal yet." For a future film to be notable, IMO, it has to rise to the level that it would still be notable even if it was canceled and never release.  I just can't see that being the case here, thus I recommend deleting until the movie is closer to release. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice - Although it should go without saying that an AfD doesn't automatically get salted, there's a good chance this movie will later meet notability requirements after it is made. However, in contradiction to the keep votes above, a single reference rarely satisfies WP:N. In the case of a film that hasn't even approached production, it has a larger burden to show notability than a released film (as implied by WP:NFF. Again, if the film is made then there's a good chance it can be recreated but considering the lack of "buzz" surrounding it at this point I don't see its inclusion being warranted. (I did make an attempt to find any other press coverage of the film and came up empty.) --  At am a chat 21:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. Not sufficiently notable at this time -- one reliable source isn't enough under either the GNG or NFF.  Powers T 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NFF. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy & weak delete for now. This will, no doubt, be notable in time, so I'd like my written copy saved and available when more sourcing is available (see User:American Eagle/Letters to God).  American Eagle  ( talk ) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete social networks and official websites aren't RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why they are in the "External links" section. :P  American Eagle  ( talk ) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as Crystal-ballery. Springnuts (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (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.