Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

: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. The arguments for deletion seem to focus on the lack of secondary sources covering the topic, but as these appear to have been provided, I think it is safe to close this as "keep". –Juliancolton | Talk 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East]]=

:{{la|Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East}})

This article lacks verifiability because there are no reliable, third-party sources. It therefore also fails the general notability guideline ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") as well as the more detailed notability guideline for films. Was created in April 2007 by a now-banned user who engaged in regular POV pushing. *** Crotalus *** 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep—even the article has a reliable third party source, and if you want more, pick one of the 79,100 Google results. The documentary appears in all major online film databases, and has been a subject of numerous reviews. It further concerns me that the nominator used "was created ... by a now-banned user" as one of his arguments, as if that somehow invalidates the article. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:*What makes the "Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle" a reliable source? They look like a random website — where is the evidence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Yes, there are lots of Google hits — that proves nothing. We need reliable sources, not random webpages. Can you cite any reliable, third-party sources that specifically discuss the film (not merely mention it in passing)? When I googled "Relentless: The Struggle for Peace" (in quotes), I found a bunch of blogs, self-published webpages, bittorrent sites, etc., but nothing that I would classify as a reliable source in this context. Numerous reviews — where are they? I want evidence, not vague generalities. *** Crotalus *** 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unless neutral third party sources can be provided establishing satisfactory notability.--TM 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relentless:_The_Struggle_for_Peace_in_the_Middle_East&action=history number of non-banned editors] who have worked on the article since its creation. Not a surprise that a docummentary titled Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel might receive coverage in Jewish reliable sources... [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/289869891.html?dids=289869891:289869891&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Feb+14%2C+2003&author=MELISSA+RADLER&pub=Jerusalem+Post&desc=STATESIDE%3A+News+from+Jewish+America&pqatl=google Jerusalem Post], [http://www.jewishjournal.com/arts/article/looking_for_truth_in_documentaries_20030530/ Jewish Journal], [http://www.forward.com/articles/8087/ Forward]... but it has been written up in non-Jewish reliable sources as well... [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=OKTB&p_theme=oktb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0FBFC2B024BE8C28&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Oakland Tribune], [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&s_site=miami&p_multi=MH&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0FCBDC44C16D86A7&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Miami Herald], and [http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529332230.html The Age], but to note only a few. It appears the author has not edited the article since September of 2007... so if there are concerns about article sourcing or tone, that would seem to be a matter for cleanup... not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, founded in 1921, does not seem quite random to me. WIkipedia does not denigrate the Washington Post if it writes about Washington, DC activities... nor Times of India if they write about something of interest to India. Articles about a documentary of interest to someone Jewish, might quite reasonably be found in Jewish press. That does not invalidate the coverage. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt JaakobouChalk Talk 11:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

: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.