Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/40 Point Plan

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 delete. Nakon 03:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

40 Point Plan

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Admittedly the film did not reach broad distribution. It will not qualify as WP:NFILM. Because this is pseudo political in nature, it did receive coverage amongst the various special interest elements that are portions of its subject matter. There are currently 20 sources, many through the communication media of these special interest groups. While most are not mainstream media, they show significant discussion of the film to establish WP:GNG. Trackinfo (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: most of the current sources appear unreliable or based upon press releases, but IF the any of the reviews or commentary listed HERE can be found and offered as citations, I'd suggest a weak keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't easy to find for sure, and the quote listed was not precise, but I have now posted the exact quotes and sources for the second and the fifth comment on that list into the article. Trackinfo (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References appear to be unreliable, much of them blogspam. Neutrality^talk 00:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) Logic introduced by Trackinfo and User:MichaelQSchmidt was compelling but additional sources are unreliable. There WP:MUST be more sources but I could not find them. @Rob talk 17:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I was about to close this and realized it sounded eerily familiar. With thanks to Trackinfo and MQS, I do not consider the sourcing strong enough (in terms of reliability) to warrant a "keep" vote. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 5 April 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.