Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Numbers? (2nd nomination)

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. Singu larity 08:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story

Last AFD this was moved from Wikipedia space to article space, but I don't think it deserves an article - no sources and barely anything of note online aside from an IMDB entry. Whatsmore, I don't think it passes any of the WP:MOVIE criteria. -Halo (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: MFD AFD here, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story, was unaware of previous AFD which ended in Delete in March 2007 -Halo (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previously deleted per WP:CRYSTAL, but is now in post-production, and the article includes links to articles showing independent coverage. Don't see a problem keeping it.--Michig (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the SF-Gate article is about the only decent indepednent source there, and the amount of content devoted to this film in that article is not huge. The Inquirer is about as reliable as a 1968 Datsun, an IMDB is not really an indicator of notability, and "Pod Tech" seems to be just some random blog, which isn't usually considered a reliable source. None of the other links are to independent sources. It is my opinion that there is insufficient third-party information on this movie to pass either WP:V or WP:N. Lankiveil (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You may be right about the lack of independent coverage. I've added another link to the article, which may help a little. WP:V shouldn't be too much of a problem. The novel approach being taken to the film probably makes it notable to some extent. --Michig (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the San Francisco Chronicle article, The Inquirer article, and the New York Times blog are enough to keep this article. When the film is released, this article is going to be recreated anyway. I'm sure there are going to be several reviews of the film published. --Pixelface (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also I think it would be counter productive to aliminate this article for the next few months as the film is due out in the begining of '08.U5K0 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Pixelface (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Asserts sufficient notability for a future release and the Datsun 510 was famously reliable. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per WP:SNOW. This has been nominated for deletion a ridiculous amount of times and has been re-created again and again. I didn't know what I started when I created it...--Orthologist (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:55, 23 December 2007 (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.