Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus, Bro!

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. I sympathize with the views to wait a moment to see if additional coverage is released that would establish notability for the subject. However, there is agreement here that there is insufficient coverage available in reliable sources at this time. If there is additional coverage in the future, the notability of the subject may be reconsidered. If the page creator would like, and if no one objects, I would be happy to move this into their userspace or the draft space for them to work on in the meantime as we wait for additional sources. Mz7 (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, Bro!

Jesus, Bro! (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)

Not notable. Doug and Brad are the only notable people involved in this, and "I Hate Critics" is not a reliable source. The only passable source is the Dove Foundation review, but I was unable to find any other reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... I've witnessed this before, and I'm really too tired and disillusioned to start a fight over this again. All I'll say is these guidelines are basically designed to screw over independent art. Go ahead, we wouldn't wanna take valuable space from articles on every single obscure side character in a Disney-owned franchise in existence... -- Imladros (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• It really does seem to have just come out. One option might be to "userfy" it and Imladros can simply wait to see if we get a few reviews in bona fide reliable sources. It wouldn't take much. I've seen plenty of notable crowd-sourced indie projects. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep For now. Honestly, 1 month of release for an indie project like this... This feels about right. You're right, TPH, that the Dove Foundation seems to be the most notable review. However, unlike cinematic releases, I don't expect there to be a huge post-release surge which quickly trickles off. Give it a few months and it will likely have a few more independent RS reviews. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete reliable, secondary sources really do need to take notice of a film before it can have a page. I searched, and none have.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete As above, apparently not noteworthy indie film. No reliable, secondary sources.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable film. If it is indeed notable in a few months, the article can be taken to DRV. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Somewhat notable. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. –Matthew - (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• @MatthewHoobin: What is it being built with, besides fansites and only one review? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's got two reviews and an IMDb page, so that's at least something to start with. Additional sources may make themselves known as time passes. –Matthew - (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: One of the reviews is from an obviously self-published source and thus not reliable. IMDb itself is not a reliable source since it's user submitted. There is no reason to play "wait and see" with an article that is not notable in its current state. If it becomes notable later, then the page can always be undeleted, but as of right now it doesn't seem to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• I get skeptical when I see a film page with no reviews in WP:RS media. I get skeptical when I don't see blue-linked people involved in making the film. In this case, only two guys in the infobox are bluelinked, sort of. Writer Brad Jones is actually linked to a webcast called The Cinema Snob. Only one actor in the film has a page Doug Walker (actor); it appeared a few weeks before the film was released. I have tagged both Brad Jones and Doug Walker for notability. I am not seeing WP:RS secondary coverage for either of them , or for this film.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I just watched the trailer. It's funny. But still has to have sources that support notability or it can't have a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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.