Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third Jihad


 * 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; 00:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Third Jihad

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The sources used in this article are not sufficient to determine notability. Most of the article is based on primary sources. This article seems promotional in nature. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a notable documentary with notable parties involved that has gotten substantial coverage by major media organizations. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may be notable, it may not, I can't tell from the sources cited. I know, what an amazing comment, right?  Freakshownerd happened to mention this AfD to me because of my interest in a related topic, but I don't have time to research this documentary at the moment.--Milowent • talkblp-r  02:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Beyond the refs now cited (I added a few), it has even further and broader coverage in the news, from diverse papers that are geographically dispersed.  Notable.  Note to nom:  wp:before requires the nom to look beyond the sources cited in the article -- if the sources exist to reflect notability, it should not be nominated, even if they are not reflected in the article itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and close per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:HEYMANN. Following upon User:Epeefleche's work, I gave the article a few tweaks myself for style.  And in agreement with Epeefleche, and the ease with which numerous sources are found, it being brought to AFD rather than having concerns addressed through regular editing, seems to underscore a failure to look beyond the article before nominating.  There are reasons editors are encourged to see if reasonable options exist, other than deletion.  It's a keeper.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:30, 20 August 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.