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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noah (1998 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)

The articles, as it stands, fails WP:NFILM rather alarmingly. It has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," it's completely, and it has no notable reviews on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I'd say it would take a Heymann Standard-level clean up at this point. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The cast has many notables. Newsbank shows many good sources, like this one from The Record (Bergen County): "What, you may ask, is Tony Danza doing? The answer is 'Noah,' a Disney television movie in which a shady building contractor of today finds himself in the same position as the biblical Noah with an angel sent by God telling him to start building an ark because a flood is on the way..." Here is a review in the Video Source Book and one here in VideoHound. Probably more offline sources, judging from the premiere date. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nothing intended about the current nominator, but I'm not liking seeing a lot of AFDs about pretty clearly notable topics, started with apparent intention of calling on AFD participants to develop random articles chosen. AFD is not for cleanup. Tag an article for development if you like. --doncr am 14:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand you said it wasn't intended for me specifically, but it did not seem to be a notable topic to me in the slightest. A notable cast is not usually considered to be enough to warrant an article. For instance, Goose on the Loose, a 2006 film starring Chevy Chase, Kari Matchett, James Purefoy, Joan Plowright, Max Morrow, Tom Arnold, and William B. Davis, does not and probably never will have an article, considering an incredibly small amount of information on the film. Or the TV film The Cloning of Joanna May, which featured Patricia Hodge, Brian Cox, Peter Capaldi, Purefoy, Billie Whitelaw, and Oliver Ford Davies. Similar case to Goose on the Loose, in my mind. In the case of Noah, I felt this was similar. Very few outside sources of any note link to it, so it felt worthy to AfD. I'm starting to think perhaps I misjudged, but I nominated this article for deletion because I truly believed it should be deleted. Apologies if I come off too defensive, I'm not meaning to. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are hundreds of film stubs with less content than this one. Nothing a little TLC couldn't fix... Fortdj33 (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that it fails to meet notability. Regardless of whether other articles are like this or have less information, it still isn't notable enough, in my opinion. Rilech (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I feel the article could be saved, but only if a few sources are found for it. G S Palmer (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Improve/Source - Usually I vow to delete any unsourced articles but I feel someone in the film area can expand/improve it alot so I'm saying keep for now. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I added another secondary source. Seems kinda borderline, but I bet there are other secondary sources out there, so I'd say it's notable enough to warrant inclusion. Orser67 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep two sources (currently) so may meet WP:GNG, although second one is minor mention. Widefox; talk 08:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just because our article isn't very good isn't a good enough reason to get rid of it. I've looked over WP:DEL-REASON and can see no good reason for removing this page. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep What the hell is wrong with you? Obviously notable. JOJ ^Hutton 23:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What did I do to deserve that abrasiveness? I stated my rationale and provided explanations for it. You have no reason to be rude to me. Corvoe (speak to me) 00:06, 11 April 2014 (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.