Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Terror


 * 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   redirect to Art_Olivier. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Operation Terror

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have searched for reliable sources on this film and I have found no significant discussion of the film. Coverage seems limited almost entirely to official sources or blogs, usually conspiracist blogs The Devil's Advocate  tlk. cntrb. 21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:FILM seems to suggest that being a winner at the International Movie Awards, and possibly the other awards mentioned, may be significant. I came across this article after hearing a half-hour interview with the producer on a public radio station, so I'd say broadcast coverage isn't insignificant even if print coverage is hard to find. ~Amatulić (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFILM, which I presume is what you meant, talks about "major awards" and I can find no indication that the "International Movie Awards" are that significant.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant WP:NFILM. And I'm the first to admit I have no idea of what awards are significant for independent films. Pop culture isn't on my radar most of the time. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's a new film that hasn't reached the notability threshold of coverage at this time. The award is suspect to me: impossible to verify, since the awards web page doesn't list their own winners, nominees or entrants. Perhaps all entries that paid the entry fee won? That page hasn't updated their entry deadline since 2012. However, if it is in fact the first dramatization of truther theory, that is something not covered by the guidelines that personally I wouldn't ignore. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the first dramatization of a truther theory. There have been several older ones that have gotten much more attention. None of them have articles as far as I know, though there is at least one that I believe to be notable.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but now we are in that strange Wikipedia position where no source is likely to say that the other source is wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikipedia relies upon the GNG for determining whether or not a festival is notable or not, but as this fairly new film is still screening at festivals and its future history is yet unwrit, why not Incubate this for a while and see what comes forward if/when it gains more attention?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that you're wrong, but is it still screening? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Their website shows it as being "official selection" to screen in October at the 2013 Baghdad International Film Festival.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In order for a film to meet this particular clause of WP:NFILM, the screening at a film festival must be at least 5 years after its release. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @ AQFK: You may be misunderstanding me. I do not assert that the film meets a clause of WP:NF... a clause set for something being considered historical for screening five years after initial release (check my essay). I am instead offering a conjecture that because it is STILL screening, coverage might be expected and that incubation out-of-mainspace is an option that allows continued and collaborative editing until WP:NF is a lock.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As it IS still screening, I am fine with it being userfied back to its author.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme ( talk )  01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Art_Olivier. I've added a bit about the film to Olivier's article and since he wrote and produced the film, it'd be a reasonable enough redirect to his article. It is possible that it might gain further coverage, so leaving it with the history intact would be a viable option and we could always userfy a copy to the original author if they showed interest. I'm not terribly optimistic about it gaining coverage, but stranger things have happened with films. In any case, the section on Olivier's page has the most important info, such as the release date, basic premise, and awards/noms. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Art Olivier per work performed by Tokyogirl79 as a suitable solution until such time(if ever) the film ever receives the media attention to merit a separate article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:59, 19 April 2013 (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.