Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart Like a Hand Grenade

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 merge to American Idiot. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Like a Hand Grenade

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "Non-notable film: According to the article, screened only once, for ~500 people and 'It has been reported that the movie would be released on DVD but as of 2011, no news has been announced if this is, in fact, true.' Only source is a Green Day fan site." Reason given for removal was "Page should remain up because it was a featured film that was shown in a theater. Its not like it was a private film shown to 3 people in a basement. It was a feature film shown in a theater and it still might make it to DVD." The length of the film and how many people saw it makes little difference: As usual, the threshold for inclusion (per policy) is not merely that something exists, but that it has received coverage in reliable third-party sources. The likelihood of a film that was only screened once for 500 fans receiving significant coverage from multiple third-party sources is slim to nil. Whether it "still might make it to DVD" is completely irrelevant: If/when it does, maybe then it'll receive the secondary source coverage necessary to justify an encyclopedia article about it. Our notability thresholds are based on the existence of source coverage, not whether such coverage may exist at some undetermined point in the future. IllaZilla (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some references. This one is certainly significant coverage. Pburka (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 sources were added. The one linked above does give some detailed coverage, but the other one mentions the subject only in passing, in a parenthetical; the article itself is about an entirely different film by the same director. The details given in the second source might be appropriate to add to American Idiot (see my comment below). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also ok with User:IllaZilla's proposal to merge to American Idiot. Pburka (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting my remark. I said that if the result of this AfD is a "merge" consensus, then the appropriate target would be American Idiot rather than Green Day. I'm still in favor of deletion (which is why I AfD'd it in the first place). There's only 1 source giving significant coverage, it would be quite simple to write a couple of sentences in American Idiot and cite that source. A merge would be unnecessary, as the majority of the content in this article is unsourced and there are only a couple sentences' info worth carrying over. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Day#Related projects. While the reference cited by Pburka is relevant coverage, this film for some reason has not been distributed to the public, but just to an invited audience for a one-time showing. If more sources become available, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a merge is the end result, then I think a more appropriate target would be American Idiot, since the film is about the making of that album. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Idiot as a logical target.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because the film was never released, too little of the information in the article is notable for a merge to be merited. One or two sentences within American Idiot should be sufficient to cover everything notable about the film.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sumsum2010·T·C 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Might not be a good movie, but it's a real and credible movie. Unlike books, there's a relatively finite number of movies because of the high production expenses, and it is more useful for wikipedia to be a reference of movies (even those with limited, one night release) than to exclude them. It is ok to merge with another article. Wxidea (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all films were notable by definition, the article WP:NF wouldn't exist.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It's real" and "It's useful" do not address the issues of notability and sourcing explained in the nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a good deal of secondary source coverage from WP:RS multiple references. -- Cirt (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. There are only 3 sources cited. As explained above, 1 is a Green Day fansite and thus doesn't pass our reliable source criteria, and another mentions the subject only in passing (seriously, it mentions it once, in a parenthetical). There is only 1 source that gives significant coverage and meets the reliability threshold. The topic would be better served by using that source to add a short paragraph in the American Idiot article. I seriously don't see how you can claim that "there is a good deal of secondary source coverage from multiple references". --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Idiot. Not necessarily notable on its own, and will probably work better with American Idiot. We can use the latimesblog source provided by Pburka to provide a source. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2011 (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.