Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schism (film)


 * 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 - There is a clear consensus here for "not" keeping, the question becomes whether a redirect is warranted. I find consensus on that matter to be slightly in favour of not redirecting at this time. --++Lar: t/c 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Schism (film)

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

The article isn't noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia. StaticGull Talk  15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, speedy under G11 if possible, nothing but someone spamming their YouTube video. Nothing at all notable there.Collectonian (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless there are better sources for its notability. There are many more Fitna-related clips and this one doesn't appear more important than any of the others. (Although it is not bad.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fitna (film). There has been some reaction, and I have included that link on the main page.  However, there is not enough reaction to warrant a full article.StephenBuxton (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. I have done a google search and found a few hits, however, most of it is youtube. There are outside links so the redirect will be more appropriate than a delete, that is if we are following the notability policy.  D u s t i talk to me 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above as well. I agree, this film isn't notable enough to stand on its own, but as it relates to a notable film, it's legitimate to add it to the reaction section of the main article. (The issue can always be revisited in future should Schism achieve independent notability, of course i.e. winning an award or getting major press coverage on its own, etc). 23skidoo (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect as a redirect would be misleading. No prejudice towards recreation if this becomes the subject of (not just a tiny mention in) multiple credible articles. gren グレン 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect Not notable. Fitna is notable, because author is well known politician, but this is really without any influence etc. Yopie 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Not notable, and no redirect.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect as a redirect would be misleading. No prejudice towards recreation if this becomes the subject of (not just a tiny mention in) multiple credible articles. gren グレン 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect Not notable. Fitna is notable, because author is well known politician, but this is really without any influence etc. Yopie 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Not notable, and no redirect.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (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.