Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Numbers? (5th 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Numbers? Everything According to Wikipedia

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

Has previously been deleted at more than one AfD, primarily because of WP:CRYSTAL concerns (it has never been released, despite claiming for years that it was about to be). I had planned to speedy it, but a number of editors protested, so I've brought it here instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment for clarity: the documentary's own promotional material claims that it won't be out until November 30, but there is an apparently authorized online video available to viewers in the United States, see here. I'm mentioning this in the spirit of providing complete information. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I marked this for G4, and I still think that it should qualify, due to crystal balling and promotional issues. Moreover, films released primarily through DVD/download channels are not inherently notable; previous arguments to keep an article on this film presumed that it would be screened in theaters. It's claimed that there will be a "limited" release, but that's more crystal balling. Unless and until there is substantial third-party coverage of the significance of this film, we should not act as a promotional vehicle for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the film has completed principle filming and has premiered in New York, Crystal does not apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand why the article was deleted earlier (2007-2009), but the situation has surely changed significantly compared to the previous AfDs. I wasn't involved in them, but it seems to me that the decisive factor back then was that the film didn't exist yet and the article was merely about a project to create one - see the "vaporware" comments and the justification for the last (December 2009) nomination: "Its nice that someone wants to make a documentary about Wikipedia, there are lots of books about it after all, but this one doesn't look like it is ever going to happen." It has happened, the film's existence isn't in doubt any more and it has had both its premiere (in July) and its release (on October 20 according to IMDb[1], the day of the screening at the Paley Center for Media). We also have more coverage in well-known reliable sources now: New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, IndieWire, Süddeutsche Zeitung (the largest German daily) as well as in other notable publications (The Register [2], The Inquirer [3]) and in specialist but reasonably reliable media [4][5] etc.). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no longer merely crystal. The sources are fully adequate. It's a shame the film has been so long in production that its significance is not as great as it might have been, but it is still notable DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now the film exists and the sources are here. Koko90 (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Difficult to deal with, but obviously notable. Reviews are starting to show up and will increase when the film is released. Fred Talk 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sourcing is provided to establish notability, and there seems to be plenty more out there. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: AOL's "Urlesque" blog published a review yesterday and actually made reference to this AfD. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is certainly not guessing about the future (at least, not any more). The film was previewed at Wikimania and was premiered a week ago in New York - http://www.paleycenter.org/paleydocfest2010-truth-in-numbers-everything-according-to-wikipedia I know - myself and SJ Klein (WMF board) were on the panel!. Witty Lama 03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF, topic aside. Worries of Cystal have been dispelled. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of reliable sources to pass GNG and notability criteria for films. There is no crystal balling in the article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:59, 4 November 2010 (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.