Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Union in Wait

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 speedy keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Union in Wait

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, I found no independent reliable sources discussing the film, only movie aggregate sites providing the filmmakers' description. Search of Google News only shows a few mentions in film festival previews. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 18. Snotbot t • c » 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "A Union In Wait was the first documentary about same-sex marriage to air on national television in the United States." surely suggest notability. Clearly this user is just slapping an AfD nomination on every LGBT related article that fails under WP:GNG because of the users religious views. This is ridiculous! JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a policy based notability rationale for keeping the article. You just agreed that it fails GNG. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not agree that it fails WP:GNG, anyways WP:NF "The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" clearly the fact that it was the first documentary about same-sex marriage to air on national television in the US is an unique accomplishment. JayJay^{Talk to me} 18:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, inappropriate action by nominator. — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a policy based notability rationale for keeping the article. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJay and Cirt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a policy based notability rationale for keeping the article. NYyankees51 (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, really needs sourcing to establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will not vote because I am currently subject to an ANI complaint from the nominator, but I agreed with Sarek that the article needed improvement, so I added some sourcing, see [1]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been improved since nomination Pass a Method talk 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Meets WP:GNG. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep While certainly the article as first nominated could (and did) benefit from improvement, adressable issues are rarely cause for deletion of notable topics. After nomination forced cleanup, the article was further improved to serve the project. As the topic had available sources and has been improved through regular editing to more obviously show a meeting of WP:GNG and WP:NF, it's time to close per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources containing significant coverage for the film have been identified/incorporated into the article; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NF. Gongshow ^Talk 06:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep; clear deliberate failure of WP:BEFORE as another WP:POINTy nomination by this editor. Article clearly meets all notability standards for films and this would have been obvous had 30 seconds been spent on Google. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.