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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. Article is a one line stub that appears to have been created purely to justify the creator's creation of a template of the director. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You did no research to prove that it is not notable--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide proof that Collectonian did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's notable, expand it.. doesn't seem notable enough to me and fails wikipedia quality guidelines Alan - talk 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [1]. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This seems to be a disruptive nomination contrary to WP:POINT, WP:BEFORE and WP:HOUND. The movie is covered in numerous books, as is its director. There are numerous good alternatives to deletion such as improvement of the article but these seem to have been ignored in the rush to wage war over a template. AFD is not cleanup and should not be abused as a form of editorial conflict and coercion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is your friend. Most of that "coverage" is simple directory listings of films and not significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per this article from the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This Google search link confirms that the article is a review about this film. The article can be expanded and sourced with this Google Books link. Additionally, the film was nominated for an International Film Award at Fantasporto; this is confirmed by this Google Books link. Cunard (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasporto does not seem like a very notable award, and a single review is not enough for notability. The book you list has a single brief paragraph giving a three sentence review. Not sure how that can be used to expand the article significantly. The AJC review is also just a 3 line thing? None of that is significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and close per diligent BEFORE showing this article has terrific WP:POTENTIAL for WP:IMPROVEment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to do better quoting. Almost none of those are about this film (or any film) and Christian.[2] gives more valid results...all four. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep -Bad faith nomination. Reliable sources exist to expand it and claim notability. New editors who are clearly trying to enhance wikipedia's coverage should not be treated in this way. They should not be barked at and bullied into submission but should be supported and instead encouraged to develop their stubs. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Music for the film is by Tony Banks of Genesis Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has reviews, although all negative. I search Google news for "Starship" and the name of the first leading character mentioned, but all that stands out is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution review calling it a Star Wars ripoff. Sources found by others listed here in the AFD, and what's in the article, establish notability. Dream Focus 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and Close It appears that the submission of this AfD was a mistake. Warrah (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2010 (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.