Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Us Now


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Us Now

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

Film not yet released, has only received trivial mention in a blog and online column. Fails WP:N and WP:MOVIE. Creator and main contributor seem to be spamming other (related) articles with mention of this film; seems like promotional campaign. Zim Zala Bim talk  21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. While I'm not a fan of the spam campaign, the film might be notable. The "online column" reference is the Financial Times. While it's only two paragraphs, the FT does mention that the film will appear at the London International Documentary Film Festival. The blog reference is Fourdocs, a blog put out by Channel 4. That particular blog has the air of one that is professionally written and edited, so I'll give it a bit more weight that I would the average blog. (I don't put much stock in the book reference in the article, as Lulu is a well-know vanity self publisher.) Gsearch does have noise problems, but this did look a bit promising. Eye blog appears to be another professionally edited blog, this one by the print magazine Eye.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia (as far as contribution goes) and am trying to make this page as compliant as possible with the wiki policy. As has been mentioned, the film has been reviewed in the Financial Times as well as by Channel 4, the Sheffield Doc fest (one of the biggest in the world) and a number of leading political thinkers. Please find a sample of the reviews here: http://blog.usnowfilm.com/2008/12/film-reviews/ Us Now has also been screened in London at the Royal Society for the Arts, all over Canada to more than 5000 people and Oslo, Paris, Washington, Haifa (Israel) etc... Is this not enough as far as notability goes? :) I would appreciate if you could give me a few tips in order to overcome the prospect of having this page deleted. Thanks! Halfamatan (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello All:


 * Delete without prejudice for recreation when notability is demonstrated. The FT article is a small piece on the film.  The Channel4 site solicits films, so the editorial process is unclear.  Basing notability on these sources is insufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, already bordering notable before release indicates likely notability after release. Leave alone until clearly unnotable 1 year following release and actively discourage any excessive external or cross linking. &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 04:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - we don't keep stuff because it might become notable in a year. If it does, then there is ample reason to create the article then. -- Whpq (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2009 (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.