Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principle (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mifter (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Principle
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This movie had a brief flurry of media attention in 2014 when its trailer was released and several people who participated reacted negatively and publicly; after that more or less nothing; the few reviews in mainstream media mainly followed up on the prior controversy driven by the trailer. It does not have enduring notability as required by N. I had boldly merged it to Robert_Sungenis and redirected, but the article was restored here. There is no reason for this article to exist, as all that is needed (and that it deserves per N) is at Sungenis article. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC) (add Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC))
 * Speedy keep Obvious revenge nomination after merge against consensus was reverted. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * obviously in my judgement the article should not exist, and this is the way to determine how the community views the issue now, in 2017. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was unanimously kept at its previous AfD (which was initiated by its creator after he didn't like the edits other users were making to it). Notability is not temporary. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon that some rush of press over X appears later to be just 15 minutes of fame and indeed most of the sources about this movie are actually about angry participants, not about the movie per se. In my view it does not meet N; we'll see what the community says. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This should go without saying, but lest any Wikilawyer accuse me of not making a policy-based rationale, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG, as multiple editors previously noted. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (keep merged). The brief attention makes for minimal notability for the controversy, not the movie. This coupled with a barely notable article that survived deletion as no consensus add up to a scant one article worth of material. If the movie had been edge on notable and the person was known for one thing, it would be one article, no question. I see no compelling reason that there should be two articles because the situation is reversed. BiologicalMe (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then if anything, Sungenis' article should be merged into the movie, not the reverse. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true that they are both marginal.  Sungenis is a bit moreso due to his previous work on geocentrism (two newspaper articles about that), antisemistism, apologetics, etc. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The broader subject is the person. The movie is one brief episode. Merging the movie is the correct direction. BiologicalMe (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Sungenis article barely survived AfD as "no consensus" (IMO, "no consensus" BLP AfD's should default to "delete", but that's an argument for another day), while the film AfD was unanimously kept (and appears to be cruising to another "keep"). The "broader subject" is irrelevant. There is no consensus as to whether or not Sungenis is notable, but there's clear consensus that the film is. Thus, if any merger is necessary (and it may very well not be), it's obvious that the bio would be merged into the film's article. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG easily enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Easily passes GNG. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent Primary source coverage spans no more than a week, though I notice that the film has now received some post-release coverage (Variety, LA Times). I'm not convinced this couldn't just be covered at Sungenis' article, but I don't care all that much either way. I didn't nominate the article the first time around because I "didn't like the edits other users were making", I nominated it because it was looking like this film had no lasting notability; the source coverage was limited to controversy (not information about the film's actual contents), and lasted no longer than one week. When I wrote the article I noted that "I'm happy to AfD and/or merge this around if no more coverage comes up in the coming months". Sam Walton (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Slightly confused. Do you mean something like primary source coverage but not Primary source coverage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The film review in the LATimes in 2015 is enough to establish notability (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in itself, no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

And guess what, source from 2015. So no it did not only receive coverage in 2014.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep I think it received a fair amount of coverage, but I am open to being convinced it was all not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * yep, there were a couple of reviews after it was released; the earlier flurry was driven by reactions to the trailer. the couple of subsequent reviews were mostly follow ups and more or less called it the propaganda for a FRINGE view that it is.  should have made that clear in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So (and to be clear) there was only coverage in 2014 and 2015, in 2014 it received quite a bit of coverage, and in 2015 some reviews, which said it was fringe science? So they commented on it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NFILM appears to have been met. Notability isn't temporary. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of WP:RS.  --David Tornheim (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourced article on a minor documentary from several years ago. That it is no longer getting much press is not that unusual for film-related articles. It is no ground for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-sourced, useful, and notable topic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:18, 25 February 2017 (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.