Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War times 2


 * 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

War times 2

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a film for which I declined a speedy and PRODed afterward. Does not meet WP:NFILM. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I just can't find anything out there to show that this film is notable. I've cleaned it up so it's easier to see what it's about, but it looks like the only sources out there are either WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unusable to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * keep it. due to  WP:NFILM that says one of a kind film, unique film. it also has 3 notable people in George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Thomas Muthee. somebody deleted referennces and external links that i researched and added to this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabsdirect (talk • contribs) 08:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)   Blocked sock account of Joseffar.
 * Delete - Comfortably fails NFILM, and GNG. Including archive footage of notable people doesn't even remotely give any notability to the film itself, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it. because the film itself is notable already, verifiable, it has uniqueness as per WP:NFILM one of a kind film. it has at least one person i.e Thomas Muthee who is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmission (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)   Blocked sock account of Joseffar.
 * Existing does not automatically grant notability (WP:ITEXISTS) and you must show coverage in independent and reliable sources. (WP:RS) As far as people who are in and/or have interacted with the film in some aspect, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). The only way to show notability is to provide coverage in RS. Has anywhere reliable reviewed the film or covered it? If there is a place and they would pass muster at WP:RS/N, then it can be used to help show notability. Just be aware that WP:PRIMARY sources and self-published sources like blogs cannot show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * as I explained above the reasons to keep it, based on WP:NFILM one of a kind film, I honestly think you should keep this article. I have seen film articles on wikipedia that are way less notable than this film. Apart from the fact that this film may change people's lives in the military and helps in matters related to national security and world peace as one contributor had said; It is notable enough based on online contents, its notable people, it's verifiable. Your views are based strictly on rules of thumbs, which I respect BUT when you read WP:NFILM guidelines there are several exceptions and other scenarios not just one method to determine eligibility. grandmission[[user talk:grandmission|
 * When it comes down to it, all of the guidelines at WP:NFILM require that the film in question receive coverage in independent and reliable sources. You can ask just about anyone you like and they're going to tell you the same thing. Something can be the first at something, but being first doesn't automatically guarantee notability. Sometimes it just means that you're just the first. Notability is asserted by coverage, which doesn't seem to exist here. Besides that, you also have to prove that something was the first of its kind, which would also require coverage. A good example is that every year we get multiple film articles where someone claims to be the youngest filmmaker to do something without showing proof that this is the case. No administrator is going to close this as a keep without coverage in reliable sources, regardless of the assertion. It all boils down to coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Given that both keep !votes are almost identical, from accounts with very similar editing histories, I've raised an SPI. Neither vote is based on policy, merely a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of a guideline. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep it. Verifiable. Very notable. refer wp rule one of a kind movie. As a working Hollywood writer as well as the Los Angeles Indie Film Examiner I can attest to the value of the subject of the film. It explores the concept of whether or not occult forces have been used and/ or are currently impacting the veterans who have served there. I have also written an article reviewing the film. Joseffar (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseffar (talk • contribs)
 * The Examiner is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia for various reasons and is actually listed on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. I have no problem with someone writing an article or review in the hopes of helping to establish notability for an AfD in progress, but Examiner cannot be used to establish notability. Plus see my above comment about how being "one of a kind" does not automatically give notability. Being the first at something or existing does not automatically give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Searchable listed title:
 * Alt extended title:


 * Delete for now per failing WP:NF. I found multiple press releases  and several blog reviews, and other similar, but there is nothing (yet) in reliable sources speaking about this film. And to the "keepers" above, there are plenty of "expose" documentaries with "unique" (to themselves) story lines, and not all meet our notability criteria. However, if or when this one is reviewed by or gets coverage in reliable sources an undeletion or recreation might be considered. For now, it's simply TOO SOON.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:05, 4 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.