Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope John Paul II: The Movie


 * 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The result was Speedy keep: nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II: The Movie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films. Neelix (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand this poor neglected stub... but first correct the title to Pope John Paul II (1984 film), or The Pope (film) as it was never titled Pope John Paul II: The Movie. Sheesh... talk about an author's ill-chosen article title setting up an AFD template find sources doomed to failure for this pre-internet film. Directed by Herbert Wise, it received a WGA Award nomination in 1985, stared Albert Finney, Robert Austin, Caroline Bliss, Antony Brown, and Alfred Burke... and IS sourcable. There will be search difficulties inherent in Jon Voight being in the similarly titled Pope John Paul II (TV miniseries) in 2005.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Title corrected.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep per manifest lack of WP:BEFORE. See New York Times, Ottawa Citizen, The Milwakee Sentinel, The Milwakee Sentinel-bis, Boston Globe, The Evening Independent, The Phoenix, The Courier, The Day, Times Daily, The Southeast Missourian, The Telegraph-Herald, New York Times-bis, Sunday Union, Youngstown Vindicator, Lakeland Ledger, The Evening News and a lot more (no mention about the books!). The nominator is invited to change his search method, as it is not the first time that he nominates/proposes for deletion with this same rationale subjects that have literally tons of reliable coverage in support of their notability. Cavarrone (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * NICE! Hope the nom realizes that needing work is not a valid reason to delete a notable topic, and that notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their not being used in an article. Now I will expand the thing and set up another DYK!  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic obviously passes WP:GNG. See the !votes above for some the sources that proves this. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: Using a few of the easily findable and readily available multiple reliable sources, the article has gone from the unsourced 160 character stub that was first nominated, and become a sourced 3222 character start class article.. Sure, there's more that can and will be done, but I think the lesson I offer here by a little effort is that the encyclopedia is vastly improved when editors actually and proactively address issues, rather than deleting something that simply needs some attention. And while AFD is not intended as a bludgeon to force improvemnts, such were easy enough to do and I would ask the nominator to seriously consider a withdrawal. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The film's notability has been established. Neelix (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (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.