Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saving 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   no consensus. Good arguments have been made on both sides here. That the notability of actors does not spill over to the notability of the film is a perfectly reasonable view, and accepted as common practice. Nonetheless, the award the film received, and the reviews (some of them critical), have persuaded enough people that the subject passes notability standards, and the level of support for that view is strong enough to prevent there being a consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Saving God

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

Fails WP:MOVIE. BJ Talk 09:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I PROD'd this and agree it is too promotional and non-notable to qualify for inclusion.  MBisanz  talk 09:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete no sources, no awards, straight to video, not even an assertion of notabilty? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if it was slightly notable it should be completely rewritten. Deletion Mutation  17:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 20:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I would consider there to be assertions of notability. Cast members notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, screenplay apparently by someone notable, and an award from a film festival rather more notable than the one held every other year in Downby in the Swamp (weather permitting). I don't find the tone spammy. There are sources quoted. What's wrong with straight to video? Is this a new policy that I've missed - a film is not notable if released on DVD instead of in the cinema? Not a film I would watch, but then again I wouldn't watch Four Weddings, Forrest Gump or Rambo (any of them) either. Personal choice. I comment not on other matters concerning this and other nominations. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete . I can't find a single published review of this movie. Notability is borderline at best. Pburka (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Ving Rhames stars in "Saving God"
 * That looks more like a press release than a review. Here's the original version of that release, on the website of a PR company. Pburka (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or Ving Rhames Stars in Newly Released Christian Film ? or Movie Review: Saving God or dvdvertict's review ? RenegadeMonster (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. The first of those is basically a rehashed press release. Quoting the producer is a dead giveaway. The next two both look like legitimate reviews (they even criticize the movie -- definitely not PR). However they're not from well known publications so it's difficult to say if they count as WP:RS (something in print in a major newspaper would be better). But they do not seem to be user contributed reviews (i.e. someone has actually paid for them to be written) and they've got Alexa rankings of 20000 and 50000 respectively (i.e. obscure but not incredibly so). Pburka (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * blue-ray.com review ? RenegadeMonster (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability is not inherited from Golden-globe winning actors to the films they appear in, and any published reviews of this movie are likely due solely to Rhames' involvement and those of the other noteworthy cast members. Meta Mutation (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, though the starring folks would seemingly help this film be notable, it has not received in any significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources since its release. Bulk of news hits are just the press releases from the producing company or the press releases about the festival it was released at.Only found only one review that wasn't a blog and might meet WP:RS All others found either fail WP:RS or are "claimed" reviews from the official website that has no actual sourcing and appear to just be "paid for" commentary. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There are plenty of reviews out there, mostly from are-they-reputable-are-they-not sources though. Like for example. I would suggest though, that the strength of the cast and that award make it eligible for inclusion. Weak keep I know. I'd try and rewrite this article but I struggle when its for a film I'd rather rip my teeth out than watch. However I'll watch the page and no-one else wants to rewrite I'll have a go. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blu-Ray.com does not meet WP:RS, nor do any of the other reviews. The cast does not make it notable either, nor is the award a major one. Again, it still does not meet WP:NF. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The movie sucks and the article sucks, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT.   It seems notable enough, with the awards it won and the cast.  Jwray (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awards indicates multiple, where as it appears to have one, a minor, seemingly unnotable, film festival award, that isn't even verified. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now verified.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It would help if the article included something about what the movie is about. (Is it a drama? A documentary? Andrew "Dice" Clay's latest come-back vehicle?) -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It had a plot, but it was WP:COPYVIO; while reasonably certain the article was created by the film makers, better not to presume for those purposes. Added a short rephrasing. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now that I have read the plot, it sounds like it's an update of The Cross and the Switchblade. Still not certain whether it's worth an article in Wikipedia, though. -- llywrch (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a film notable and well recieved by experts within its genre. Note The article has just received a well-needed sandblasting and expansion. It has won at least one award and even though now on DVD, is still making the Christian Film Festival circuit. That Christian films do not get big box release and coverage does not negate their notability to the millions of Christian viewers acroos the country. It ain't Saving Private Ryan, but in proper context for what it is, it meets WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but let's be honest. It has been reviewed by ONE critic (not really considered a major one), two "family film" review sites/magazines that pretty much review ALL movies (briefly, and without any actual critical review) and personal Christian websites which are not RS. I've removed all the film festival stuff again - its pretty much completely irrelevant and doesn't belong in film articles. Being in a Film Festival, especially a bunch of minor ones, is not notable unless it won an award, which it didn't except at one. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as an ordinary article on an ordinary film. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, not impressed by the awards, but I think it scrapes by the GNG. I don't think being in festivals automatically makes a film notable but it illustrates what kind of audience it has, so it's worth including in the article. Nerfari (talk) 20:31, 31 March 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.