Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagged: The Jonathan Wamback Story


 * 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   KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagged: The Jonathan Wamback Story

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

Non-notable made-for-TV movie (made-for-TV movies aren't inherently notable, are they?) Best source I could find was this, but that's only one source, so I'd say this fails the general notability criterion. On top of that, the page is a big rambling plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Canoe.ca is a reliable source by any standards, but it cannot be regarded as a secondary source in this instance. No hint that the movie has ever been rebroadcast, or is available on DVD. Keep. According to the IMDB profile here, the movie was nominated for 6 Gemini awards. Those are the top awards in Canada, so that's notability right there. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The movie was apparently part of a broader campaign against teenage violence that attracted some attention; how much attention was directly attributable to the movie itself - not just the events that inspired the movie - is an open question. I'll look into it.  The plot summary does need to be drastically truncated, and the notability of the movie does need to be established - it clearly isn't yet.  (As an administrative matter, the link to the AfD in the article tag is currently a redlink.) Townlake (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral / Default to Keep I couldn't find anything better than the Gemini stuff on a couple brief searches. I don't find the nominations themselves conclusive evidence of notability (nominations aren't awards), but those noms are a good starting point for further research, and that research should be given time to occur before deletion. Townlake (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete article comprehensively fails to establish importance. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability; atrociously written. Biruitorul Talk 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The film gets plenty of relevant google hits, though they mostly appear to be directory listings and such. I did find this which provides some real-world context for the story, though it's not a third party source. The film has also been nominated for several awards . PC78 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Awards do show a notability. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Awards establish notability. In response to a question asked by the nominator, yes made-for-TV movies are inherently notable if they can be verified, etc. If they receive national broadcast on a major network they are as notable as TV series. And to segregate them from "real" movies (i.e. theatrical release) is unacceptable as it requires violation of WP:NPOV to make such a judgement call. 23skidoo (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No films are inherantly notable. They are all required to meet notability criteria, i.e. WP:NF. PC78 (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets notability criteria for films without question. This should not have been nominated for AfD. In future, it might make sense to enhance or edit an article rather than try to get it erased. Ecoleetage (talk)


 * 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.