Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diary of Sacco and Vanzetti


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure). Till I Go Home (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Diary of Sacco and Vanzetti

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable film. Article has no references, and no indications of reviews or critiques from notable sources. Σ Α Π Φ (Sapph) Talk 15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep The article says that the film is a docudrama, and that it portrays a historically accurate account of Vanzetti's life. This is a subjective statement and without reliable sources that support this (I couldn't find any) there is not enough to stand on to have an article.  I suggest that this docudrama be placed in the Film section of the article, Sacco and Vanzetti.--MLKLewis (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Recent changes to the article by MichaelQSchmidt have made me change my vote - good job!--MLKLewis (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * delete and merge mention to the main article, per MLKLewis. No sources, no content, thus no article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per recent changes, I'm happy to change this to a keep. Well done! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep What may have begun as an unsourced stub has, since being nominated, NOW become an ecyclopedic start class article that presents its topic in a neutral and properly sourced manner. I felt it best to see what I might be able to do before coming to this discussion, as it is never in the best interest of the project to delete notable topics if concerns are addressable. First screened in 2004, and though not worldwide in its scope or coverage, the film continues to screen seven years later... still receiving modest attention.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Michael's excellent edits have pulled this article out of the quagmire. As there are other deletes, I don't feel comfortable in closing this AfD, but my concerns have been addressed.  Σ Α Π Φ (Sapph) Talk 23:31, 6 December 2011 (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.