Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principle


 * 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 The consensus is for Keep and that WP:NTEMP applies.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Principle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

When I created this article I noted that I wasn't entirely confident of its long term notability, but gave it the benefit of the doubt based on the wide coverage of the controversies. As it turns out however, there's been next to no reliable source coverage of the film since then, with the only real sources of substance available being about the controversy. In addition, nearly two months on from the release of the film, it has received no noteworthy reviews (The one review on RT has been discounted as worth including). As such, I am now nominating the article for deletion. Sam Walton (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep because I think it is sufficient to have an article on this topic per WP:GNG. I don't believe the coverage has to be film reviews. For what it's worth, it looks like the National Catholic Register reviewed the film here. (Also, it looks like the same reviewer dissected the film further here.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't tell either way, but do the NCR's blogs have editorial oversight? Sam Walton (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think it does, per WP:NEWSBLOG. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * KeepMickeyDonald (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC) see here: http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/  Noteworthy movie.
 * , a film's official website is not indicative of a film's notability. It needs to be based on sources independent of the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak Keep per GNG. I'd prefer reviews, but there is coverage. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (warn)  @ 14:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Clearly notable based on the sources in the article alone.  The controversy has perhaps outgrown the film at this stage, but the amount of coverage it has gotten, both as a film and on how it became a film, is undeniable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2014 (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.