Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridge (2006 drama)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bridge (2006 drama)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am not sure about this one. I have done some research, but I am just not certain if there is enough significant coverage out there in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, to warrant satisfaction of WP:NOTE. Bringing here for assessment of notability from the community. -- Cirt (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please procedural close - I believe I have subsequently improved the page to enough of a quality in order to satisfy WP:NOTE. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Fascinating and a very thin online presence. It clearly meets V, and has the one MSNBC mention, but the most notable thing about this film appears to be its suppression. If it's deemed not to have independent notability, and based on the references already in the film article I suspect what we see is all there is, then it could be reasonably merged into Scientology in popular culture.  That seems a waste, though, in that Wikipedia's notability guidelines would then be aiding the suppression of the film. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, unfortunately, if this were to be deleted, it would be the same possible intention that MSNBC had posited the Scientology organization attempted, namely, what you identify above as "suppression". I would most welcome suggestions from other editors as to further WP:RS secondary source coverage, but without such source coverage, we really cannot present a quality article on the subject. Perhaps other editors may yet be able to find additional sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete or Merge If Cirt says he is unable to find sources beyond what has been found already and based on his researching abilities on this topic then.... I don't think there are too many if any more to find if any. Thus why it exist and I think it should be mentioned elsewhere in the umbrella of Scientology articles but does not seem to meet the requirements for its own article. If more sources appear then it should be absolutley kept but as it stands now it seems to fail WP:GNG. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would most welcome it if other editors would help in attempting to find additional coverage in other WP:RS secondary sources, I just have not found such further discussion yet. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * InfoTrac, Lexus Nexus, Google Scholar, Google News, all show nothing beyond what I see already in the article. Outside of it being posted on Xenu.tv I dont even see any usual Scientology Critics mentioning it at all. This might just have to be merged elsewhere The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment In the reference section its says "Film Credits: The Bridge' is licensed as royalty-free digital media, and may be distributed online for personal viewing without permission. All offline distribution rights are reserved by Brett Hanover." Is currently mentioned in the article Does this mean it it is under a free license and eligible for inclusion on the Commons? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Questionable, not certain about this, because the director wished to retain rights to distribution offline, and yet at the same time wanted to release rights for distribution on the Internet itself. -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: During the source of further research, I was able to find a review of the film, by notable science fiction author, Cory Doctorow. Might go towards a tad bit more notability, just not sure, yet. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep looks OK to me. Peridon (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yeah, I think the improvement efforts done post-nomination go towards improving quality and demonstrating that. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and close Nominator's own improvements are impressive.  We all learn by such diligent editing.  Good going Cirt!   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and close Good additional RS sourcing and restructuring. Meets all criteria of WP:GNG. --Lexein (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2010 (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.