Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am Living Proof

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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Living Proof

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. Extremely niche attention only. TheLongTone (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A redirect to List of Christian films can be considered but some of the sources on the page + https://gazette.com/life/christian-evangelist-mario-murillo-debuts-film-about-colorado-springs-residents-healed-at-2022-tent-revival/article_212879fc-d7b3-11ef-b679-fb115590b31a.html + https://www.movieguide.org/reviews/i-am-living-proof.html might be considered enough for a standalone page-Mushy Yank. 21:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep we have two reviews identified so far in Christian Film Review here and Movieguide linked in the previous comment. As the film was only released 9 March there could be more coverage coming, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not sure if we will see any more reviews for this documentary film, as the poster states that it will run for only three days and no longer. The existing reviews shared above are either from independent blog sites or reviews without bylines, which are not sufficient for WP:NFF, let alone WP:GNG, which has a much higher standard than NFF. Opposing ATDR as the List of Christian films clearly mentions that it is for notable Christian films, which is clearly not the case here. Coverage from the Gazette is a partial interview where the director has made some exceptional claims about his own film which was done pre release(not yet sreened to the public) so holds no value towards GNG/NFF what so ever. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: No evidence of passing WP:NFILM or WP:GNG yet. (The one review cited is not independent/reliable, since the reviewer says "His passion is to generate a buzz about Christian film and get people informed and excited about Christian films". The Movieguide review has a similar problem in that in adddition to reviewing movies through a Christian lens (which is fine), Movieguide says it "also meets with major movie studios and executives in Hollywood and advise them on how they can make their movies more family and Christian friendly." I wouldn't consider that independent of production companies.) However, it may generate actual reviews once it hits streaming, so we can draftify now. (If it is moved back to mainspace without improvement or the addition of sources showing a pass on GNG or NFILM, my !vote would become "delete.") Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independent does not mean "officially non-Christian" in the present case, even if the film is a Christian film. Independent on WP: "The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic. Authors should not include members of the production, and publishers should not include the studio or companies working with it on the production and release. The kinds of sources that are considered independent are those that have covered topics unrelated to the one at hand, such as periodicals." Demanding non-Christian reviews is imv being exceedingly scrupulous. -Mushy Yank. 00:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t demand non-Christian reviews. (Look at my edit history—I very often rely on Christian sources). I called for reviews that aren’t from publications that cheerlead for the Christian movie industry. Big difference. Even a source like Focus on the Family’s Plugged In would be fine. It’s not the Christian outlook of the sources in this article, it’s their stated and vested interest in promoting the Christian film industry that compromises their independence. Make sense? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I am not really sure. If we go that way, every media outlet has bias and a general agenda. That does not make them totally non-independent or non-reliable imv. Best, -Mushy Yank. 10:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think what we need to do is look at the sites for the two reviews and see if they would be considered RS.

MovieGuide: This looks usable to establish notability. They have an awards ceremony that has gained some coverage and has been used as a source in these academic or scholarly sources.
The Christian Film Review: This one is a bit more questionable. The site looks nice and it has interviewed notable persons, some of whom are pretty notable, but there's really nothing else other than that. It's not used or mentioned as a RS by other RS and seems to have never been used as a RS by academic/scholarly sources - this includes Christian sourcing. At best this would be a weak source and at worst, it's a nicely laid out self-published source.

Personally I'd see the first source as usable and the second as not. Now other that it's a question of how good the other sources are - the Gazette source is based on an interview but it's written in prose format. I'd be willing to see that as usable. That so far leaves us with two good sources, which isn't really as good as it could be. I'll take a look to see what I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. To pass WP:NFILM the movie needs two reviews from RS and I just don't see The Christian Film Review as being a RS on Wikipedia. This wouldn't be so bad if the non-review coverage was plentiful enough, but it's lean there as well. Most of the coverage is either primary, routine listings in database and event calendars, or are in places Wikipedia would see as usable - or just junk hits. In the article itself, the sources are almost entirely primary or the type that wouldn't give notability (The Numbers, event site).

As far as redirecting to the list of Christian films goes, that page was never meant to be a listing of every Christian film ever created. There thousands upon thousands of Christian films and listing each one would make the page far too bulky and unwieldy, plus Wikipedia isn't obligated to list every film ever made or with a smattering of coverage. The movie isn't the first of its type or so unique that it would need to be covered somewhere.

I have no problem with this being moved to someone's userspace and held there until more coverage comes available. It just doesn't pass NFILM at this point in time and it's been out long enough that I have to assume that there's a good chance it might not get any additional coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Hoping two critical reviews from reliable sources can be found for the page to pass WP:NFILM. Christian film review is an unreliable source, a blog. RangersRus (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2025 (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.