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. Michig (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

90 Minutes in Heaven (film)[edit]

90 Minutes in Heaven (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

editor continues to remove notability tag. Fails WP:GNG. dailymail source has a different name for the film and is focused on a star, not the film. Obviously a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for the time being. A wrapped production based on a notable book with a notable director and a notable cast; no release date, though. Deletion would not be appropriate: instead, content from this article should be incorporated as a section of the book article until such time (if ever) as the film becomes notable on its own. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The film will be released this fall. I have already seen rough cuts of it. Deleting makes no sense at all, and people who want to remove valuable information that could benefit others make absolutely no sense. I do understand the idea of merging, but am fearful that this would not provide all the necessary information to those seeking it. There is already an OFFICIAL WEBSITE for this highly anticipated upcoming film (http://90minutesinheaventhemovie.com/) and still there is talk it's too soon?? Puh-leeeez. Donmike10 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Creating an article about a subject that is not notable makes no sense at all. I suggest not doing that in the future. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Walter Görlitz: However, making an article on something that is arguable as notable DOES make sense. He would benefit from reading MOS:FILM and understanding WP:NF and WP:RS, but the topic is determinable as meeting inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @MichaelQSchmidt: It does make sense, but as far as I see it, this film is not yet notable. You would benefit from reading WP:GNG and undestanding WP:RS, but the topic is not you or me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Response @Walter Görlitz: yes, this is not about us... and while I know you've been around for eleven years, and I accept that in some eyes I am merely a dumb-ol'-seven-years-long editor, who is somehow also an administrator, and a coordinator of Project film, I do wish to thank you for your kind suggestion above, but I am no ignorant noob and I do understand...

1. WP:GNG telling us "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article",
2. WP:RS telling us "an article should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy",
3. the inclusion criteria of WP:NF telling us to look for multiple reliable sources, and
4. know that Christian Today, Charisma Magazine, Christian Post, Religion News Service and Hallels are reliable enough sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy which treat this topic in a more-than trivial manner just as guideline suggests. And too, Deadline and Daily Mail and even Woman's Wear Daily are reliable enough for us under WP:V.

I have addressed some article issues. And while we have no mandate that sources have to be solely about a topic being sourced, enough available are and do offer substantial and direct information about the filming or completion of this film. In my understanding the cautions of WP:NFF telling us to at least wait for a film to begin, and with this one completed and receiving coverage, this production per our community standards meets GNG and thus merits inclusion per WP:NFF (paragraph 3). And thanks, but as the author of WP:TOOSOON, I do have decent sense of when something is premature or not, and when guideline is met or not. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Arxiloxos.Pincrete (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep Filming has wrapped and the production is getting coverage. Walter, it's not "too soon" as WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met, and Arxiloxos, it can certainly be spoken of elsewhere, but it has met WP:NF for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry MichaelQSchmidt, it's too soon as there no GNG. Paragraph 3 may be met, but can you show it in reliable sources? I checked the longs you provided and the answer is no, unless I'm wrong about sites like big-trailers.com and www.2015auditions.com not meeting RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry @Walter Görlitz: I am beginning to think you may not have looked at what is available. We do not expect an unreleased film to have the same level of coverage as one that has been released, however Christian Today is reliable coverage and far more than a brief mention... same for Christian Post [1] and other Christian Today articles.[2]... WP:SIGCOV is found in expected genre sources. And too, Daily Mail speak about film production when discussing actors by telling readers where filming took place. Women's Wear Daily tells us lots of unrelated stuff about Kate Bosworth, but it does tell us a slated release date for this film. And Daily Mail also shares that filming has wrapped. San Francisco Examiner tells how Dwright Yocum has a cameo. There are more Walter... and WP:GNG for production is met. Thus WP:NFF (partagraph 3) is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Majority of sources are reliable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough evidence to keep - Just to show that this is done and it's not too soon at all, here's a scene from the film: https://vimeo.com/125955502 Donmike10 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Donmike10, but the Vimeo link does not show coverage to meet WP:N. However, it is the actual coverage in expected reliable sources which shows coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- per prior comments. It has already generated sufficient coverage in reliable news sources, even outside of Christian-focused sources. --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y and rather than just argue about it Walter, I went ahead and improved the article on this completed film and added some of the multiple substantive coverage which is available. What began as a 490 characters (94 word) stub is now a 1230 characters (219 word) Start Class. I was happy to do so, folks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that was my goal when Donmike10 deleted a notability tag, twice. Thanks. Perhaps Donmike10 can refrain from calling editors morons and actually add references instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that was your goal, why not then take care of it yourself and add whatever information you deem necessary? Is deleting an article in any instance better than adding info, which could then, in turn, help people with access to information? I can think of no example in which it would be. If you want to make this all about me, go right ahead. I just will never understand why anyone would want to remove information that could possibly help people. Donmike10 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Donmike10: shhhhhh.... calm. Sure he could have done it himself, but he is not required to do so. And sure, AFD is not to be used to press for improvements and improving articles is for anyone to do and topic notability is based upon looking first to determine if sources are available even if not citing an article, the result here is that the article is now improved (you're welcome) and will likely not be deleted. Peace. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: - Much appreciated. I wish more people on here thought like you. I'm actually not remotely personally interested in this film over any other, and have no actual desire to even see this film; I just am for this site being something to provide information, most especially to the outside world. I'll remove myself completely from this discussion from here on out. Donmike10 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Donmike10: I personally find fixing up weak articles so as to serve our readers to be far more satisfying than deleting improvable topics. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Current ver of article shows that there are several notable cast members, principal photography has begun and even completed. There are reviews linked above and it seems fairly likely that it will have a wide release. NFF Paragraph 3 appears to pass as stated above, so I'm seeing no issue. I'm almost leaning towards Draft until release per WP:NFF paragraph 3, but if we assume that the production itself is notable per the reasons above, I'm okay with keep. ― Padenton|✉   18:16, 25 May 2015 (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.