The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence of notability. No sources were provided after being tagged since December 2009, until the article was prodded, when three references were at last added. Of these one is a link to YouTube, as a source for a statement that the film has been viewed there a lot of times: this is not substantial coverage in a reliable source. The second reference is a link to a page which makes the film available for viewing, and gives a number of brief quotations from various people who tell us that the film is wonderful. The site on which that page appears is a site which avowedly exists for promotion of the opinions of the man who runs the site. For example, the site says "We are not a news desk - our aim is to uncover the longstanding treason committed by American administrations against their own people and against all the peoples of the world. We try to show how this 'pattern of treason' is heading towards a new World War for the benefit of a few..." and again "read the following pages and shake your head in wonderment at the caring and grateful government that continues to hide behind falsification of so called intelligence". I am not convinced that this is a reliable source, but even if we accept it as such, a list of brief quotations is not "substantial coverage". The third reference is to a site which invites us to subscribe to it "NOT ONLY TO RECIEVE THE DAILY NEWS DIGEST OF ALTERNATIVE NEWS AND OPINION BUT TO EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR NAVIGATING UNPRECEDENTED TRANSITIONS RELATED TO THE COLLAPSE OF EMPIRE". It is a personal website, run by a woman called Carolyn Baker, and the reference is to a page on the site where she tells us how much she likes the film. I am not convinced that this can be regarded as a reliable source, and even if it is it only tells us that one person liked the film. When this article was deleted at its previous AfD the closing admin commented "There is an apparent lack of substantial, reliable coverage from which to build a proper article." The same seems equally true now.
JamesBWatson (
talk)
16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
reply