Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatherhood dreams

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. — Scientizzle 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatherhood dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't pass notability - there are four links on the page - one to the movie's site, three that each have a one-paragraph description of the film (two of those are exactly the same). Furthermore, the page was up for Speedy since a large portion of it is copied from fatherhooddreams.com, though the creator of the article says he wrote the words and is granting copyright - or something like that, but it's murky. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - a documentary that has been shown on a national network. However, little in the way of reviews and no indication that it has made any impact. At the moment it just fails to clear the bar but I am open to persuasion. BlueValour (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• To prove it's impact I've linked a Vancouver Sun 3 page article on the subjects of the doc and the doc itself. Page 2 talks with the director of the film. This was read by everyone in western Canada, the show was seen everywhere in Canada, and now the show will be shown everywhere else and hit a festival circuit outside of Canada. Wikipedia is trying to catalog as many films as possible and I think this film should be there. This film will also be hitting libraries near you shortly.(Fatherhooddreams (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
• Delete for now per WP:MOVIE criteria. Only aired once on television and basically no independent coverage of the film that would demonstrate notability. The one newspaper article linked only briefly mentions the movie. No entry at the IMDb or similar database. If the distribution is expanded and the film receives wider coverage this can be recreated later, but currently there doesn't appear to be enough verifiable source material for an article here. shoeofdeath 21:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Agree w/Satyr. Eusebeus (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (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.