Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September Eleven 1683


 * 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. Article speedy closed and kept per nominator's withdrawal and no !votes for deletion. Yes, I opined below and worked to improve the article, but it was becoming a blizzard, the nominator withdrew, and this discussion had been rendered moot.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

September Eleven 1683

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet the criteria of notability: - The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. - The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. - The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. - The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema.) - The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. - The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Kami956 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — Kami956 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. The Polish Wikipedia article cites sources such as this and this that demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't agree... Kami956 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tough. Please click here to learn why. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources that Phil Bridger mentioned. What the nominator listed are points from WP:NF to determine notability if WP:GNG is not sufficient. Phil's sources reflect that it meets WP:GNG, and a cursory look at Google News Search's archives shows a smattering of foreign-language articles that mention the film. It's likely that the film is not one covered by English-language media, so we should assess this topic with care. If there are any Polish-language editors available, additional sources to solidify notability further would be welcome. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously notable. The movie has a cast full of top names (well, in Poland at least) and has been reviewed in many notable sources (pretty much all negatively): Gazeta Wyborcza, Polityka, Rzeczpospolita, etc. The movie probably sucks, but that's true for a lot (most?) of notable movies. Volunteer Marek 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assessment! All, using the above keywords, here is Gazeta Wyborcza, and here is Rzeczpospolita. Phil already linked to the Polityka review. The topic definitely meets WP:GNG. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC


 * Keep. Movies are notable. This has received decent press coverage, at least in Poland (as shown already). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep stub article of notable film. I would encourage the nominator that. rather than nominating something for deletion as his first-ever edit to WIkipedia, he spend time studying the various guidelines first. IE: WP:NF, WP:GNG, and WP:NONENG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep,A well known film in Italy.User:Lucifero4
 * This one seems to be a no-brainer. Considering the number of sources available, how easy this one was to improve, and how easily the nominator's rationale was refuted, does anyone care to snow close this?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - considering the number of sources available, this article passes the GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I do not know whether it was intended as a withdrawal, but the nominator removed the AFD template from the article.  I reverted him, and dropped a note on his talk page explaining that the template must remain until this AFd is closed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As per above and significant coverage and obvious notability. LenaLeonard (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

think the discussion can be closed >< Kami956 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 1.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  00:59, 1 February 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.