Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Glorious Resolve


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Glorious Resolve

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advert for a non-notable movie written up in hopelessly POV style. &mdash; Sgroupace (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If sources were available to meet WP:NF, even a "hopelessly POV style" might have been addressable... however, as the film is Pakistani military public relations film touting their army and its "glorious resolve", actual reviews and critical commentary are lacking.  The article violates WP:SOAP as well.  I might have considered a redirect to Inter Services Public Relations, but that article itself also suffers from POV problems.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (struck my delete - see below)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - there was an AP article written specifically about this film: . Also foreign language coverage: .  Needs cleanup not deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per found sources. Glad to reconsider., but I strongly urge the article be sent to WP:CLEANUP to address POV and SOAP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC) (pov and soap addressed)
 * I rewrote most of the article based on that material and added the sources, take another look at it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I added categories and fixed the infobox.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep definitely, as verified by Night Gyr. Mar4d (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources cover it.  D r e a m Focus  04:25, 27 March 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.