Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unidentified


 * 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   no consensus. Canley (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Quite obscure film, doesn't seem to meet WP:MOVIE. It did receive a review at Variety, but that's it. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wholly agree. I can't find anything on this anywhere except the review you mentioned, and it was difficult to even find that. miquonranger03 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Many hits on google, and the Variety review is something. P.B. Pilhet  20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep there was a whole lot more on the web besides Variety. I added the links to the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. WP:WING, notability. QuidProQuo23 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Variety review alone satisifies film notability, and it's not the only source. Verifiability is the basis of Wikipedia, and this article provides that. 23skidoo (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, isn't it notability? Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's incorrect. WP:N is a "guideline" that depends on the policy WP:V ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability"). So we use WP:V to find WP:RS ("Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources.") in order to show WP:N ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic"). These items work together to establish WP:NF ("Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a film meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources."). User:23skidoo has it exactly correct. And the claims have been sunstantiated per the proper criteria.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: Cleaned up per style guidelines, wikified, and sourced. Notabilty established per WP:NF and WP:GNG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Still doesn't establish notability despite the review and sources. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to a link at Identification could also be an option, not sure which one, though. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Your suggestion that the film "Unidentified" be redirected to a disambiguation page for the word "Identification" confuses me. Can you explain your reasoning? And further, with the multiple reviews, and coverage in multiple independent sources, WP:NF has definitely most been established per WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS. Since you feel differently, please, tell me specifically what you think is not notable and it can be addressed. Is it that the film did not go to Caan? Is it that the film did not win an Oscar? Is it the fact that it is a Christian film and has a smaller viewer base than Ghost Busters? What more do you feel it requires? Please. Tell me so it might be addressed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it meets any of the five numbered attributes listed in WP:NF. Aside from the Variety review, all of the external links posted are trivial (please note that the New York Times link is just a reprint of the All Movie Guide review).&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With respects, that is an incorrect interpretation of that section of WP:NF. The sentence that preceeds those 5 attibutes is "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist.." It is a statement and list that only seeks to indicate that if these attributes are present, then reliable sources are likely to exist... as an encouragement to editors to seek out those sources. It does not say these attributes must exist, only that if they do, then an editor will likely find reliable sources. And please, and with greater respects, I do not think any Christian review of a Christian film is 'trivial", and I included a number of them.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:32, 11 September 2008 (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.