Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapped (documentary)

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. per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY, nomination withdrawn, congratulations to those who improved the article out of all recognition - a classic rescue. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tapped (documentary)

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

Nominally about some documentary (which in itself probably isn't notable) but is actually a massive OR rant about bottled water. Only source is to wordpress Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aside from the completely awful OR rant, a search does bring up the possibility that this could be notable. I say possibility since documentaries usually either get a ton of awards and RS coverage or they really don't get anything.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm far from done and the article is still bare bones-ish, but I've found enough to show that this documentary appears to be notable. (Although considering how horrible it was to begin with, you wouldn't have known it...)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At least you know that it needs work. But yeah, just because it's a load of crap as stands doesn't mean the documentary itself isn't notable. It is notable and we'll probably just have to nuke the article from orbit and rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Specs112 (talk • contribs) 2012-06-15 19:45:54
  - The article hadn't been in that state for two hours before you wrote that, Specs112. Please read the article under discussion whenever contributing to an AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read the article, and in my opinion it was still a load of crap, which is why I wrote that. Do we need to review the difference between facts and opinions? Specs112 t c 23:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only problem with the article is that most of the sources praised the movie, so I didn't have a lot of neutral or negative (don't mean this in a bad way) sources to work with. Aside from the sources that are purely trivial mentions (such as the awards), the sources are all reliable. It's just that most of the avenues that reported on the movie also happened to be the type of sources that tend to lean towards the eco-documentaries and things of that nature. If it comes across as biased, it wasn't really by choice. There just wasn't much to go on that said otherwise. I'm all for having someone help cleanup and re-write parts of it, though. (Starts looking for Schmidt- he's good at that sort of thing.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, okay, I'd just like to apologize for my word choice in this discussion. I was just trying to say that it's in need of improvement but not deletable either. Sorry if I offended any of you. Now can we just Snow keep this and get on with it? Specs112 t c 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has suitable sources / coverage. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is now suitbly sourced. If there are OR issues - please challange using inline tags - or remove the problematic material. OrenBochman 22:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. The nomination statement about "some documentary (which in itself probably isn't notable)" doesn't inspire, in me, much confidence in the amount of WP:BEFORE work done to actually verify notability before bringing this here, for what appears to be merely copyedit concerns. The German Wikipedia article on the film de:Abgefüllt, which can be easily read in English via Google translate, has a few more refs, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would respectfully suggest the nominator consider withdrawing this AfD, based on the wealth of WP:RS that establish notability, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:NRVE. The article's original state presented issues that were adressable through regular editing and use of available sources. I do understand the nom's worries, but he might take a look at WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:HANDLE. We generally do not delete brand new article on notable topics, specially only three hours after the author stepped away[1] when they simply needed additional editorial attention. See WP:DEL#REASON, WP:DEL#CONTENT,WP:ATD, and the essays WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE. I do not understand the nom's rush here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator. Sorry for wasting everyone's time; I am learning, slowly. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:00, 19 June 2012 (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.