Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Boil a Frog

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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Boil a Frog

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

declined speedy. I don't think there are any redeeming merits of this spam, even from its earliest version.. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I took an instant dislike to this article, based on the marketing-speak of the lede. However, as there does seem to be some coverage out there (which I have not yet evaluated), I've had a go at editing it into something more neutral, so that hopefully it can be judged here just on notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there are 30 inline citations but these do not appear to make a claim to notability. 1-10 are videos on YouTube. 11 explains what relocalization is. 12, 13 are to the movie's own website. 14-30 are to people in the article, or their organizations. So where's the notability? It could be in Movie Reviews on the web: there are some, e.g. Energy Bulletin; the movie won a "Special Mention Angel Film Award" in 2011, according to MovieScope Magazine. Article will need rewriting - nearly everything there could go - but there is probably a place for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be in agreement that this is "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." So why don't we delete and start from scratch without the baggage? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewritten and expandable portion of the article that deals with the film. Like User:Hobbes Goodyear, I went and did some work on it. The film has received numerous awards and received enough attention and recognition to meet WP:NF and WP:GNG. And in considering what CAN go after a keep... after more work and sourcing ABOUT the film, the extraneous information about the film's official website can be removed per WP:PROMOTION, as a decent article about a notable film is not to be about the film's website. The film is notable enough, but the website stuff belongs in its own article, if at all.. and in the film article we can offer our readers enough about the film so if they want to visit its website, they can do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nomination withdrawn). Subject seems to be notable, and there are editors who have completely revamped the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:18, 21 December 2011 (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.