Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart of the Beholder

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. —Ocatecir ^Talk 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of the Beholder

Borderline speediable as an advert IMO. However, that award does seem to be at least some kind of assertion of notability, and if it was genuinely banned, maybe got more coverage that it appears (I can't find anything, it has to be said, although the producers seem to have a sideline in spamming MySpace to judge by the number of hits there). I find it hard to imagine that a film would actually be banned "because it was made by athiests", unless the cinema in question was in Tehran — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of links and references, some of which look to be linkspam work, and others with organizations like PFLAG and atheist organizations discussing it. But I don't see any really good actual coverage of the film, which one would think should be out there someplace. It may not be online, is the problem. If the creators can get some refs into it, I'd be happy to see it stick around, but until then weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article because someone on myspace sent me a message about the film. Now that it turns out that this message is likely spam, I would also nominate for a weak delete. On the other hand I found some reviews about the film here and here and it seams that the film itself may be noteworthy. --helohe (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Found on the Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415838/ Seems legit. Elrith 00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Anything can have an entry on IMDB; all it does is prove it exists, it's specifically excluded as a reliable source (see
  WP:NF). I can't find any coverage of the film in anything resembling a reliable source. It's two years old so the reviews, talk etc should certainly be out there by now. And I reiterate, if this film was actually banned in the US - which seems unlikely - why is there no press coverage of this? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You know, I took a further look at this, and I agree with you. I'm changing my vote to Delete. Elrith 01:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - lacks reliable sources -- Whpq 16:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources have been found -- Whpq 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The film has been reviewed by 6 different people, at least 1 of which I think is notable. I have found the reviews on RottenTomatoes. Link--
Kylohk 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Weak~~ Keep. I checked out the reviews from Rottentomatoes, and a few of them look passable (e.g.). Also the film's site claims that it won awards at five indy film festivals, which I verified (e.g.). I won't say it's an overwhelming case for notability, but it's enough for me to go with a ~~weak~~ keep. FYI - I don't think the film was actually "banned"; I think some theaters just refused to play it.--
talk) 21:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Changing position to straight "Keep" per additional evidence from W.marsh.--

talk) 13:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

keep per Kubigula and the fact that there seems to be some more converage than just those 2 critics: [1] reveals several stories in the Post-Dispatch. Our article needs some work though. --W.marsh 13:38, 27 May 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.