Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Singularity (film)

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. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Singularity (film)

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

Fails to meet WP:NFILM at all, and this is after it was PRODed and editors tried to rescue it. Of the five sources, only one is independent and that's an interview with the director in a transhumanist source. Almost none of the substantive information in the article is cited to anything. The peacock quote in the lede section is from a transhumanist organisational blog. I'm willing to be convinced, but this article's never had anything that does; the relevant criterion is Wikipedia:Notability (films), and "keep" arguments should address that or WP:GNG. I must note that I'd quite like this to be article-worthy, but I have to say it honestly doesn't look like it yet - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some more sources: [1] from the IEEE Spectrum, [2] from The Globe and Mail, and [3] from Forbes. The Forbes link is from their contributor network, but the author is tagged as a staff writer. The executive editor of the IEEE Spectrum appeared in the film, but I don't think that invalidates their review. There's also [4] in H+ magazine, but I'm not entirely sure it's a reliable source. It seems like it is, but I try to stay away from possibly fringey stuff like this and have little experience with it. With The Atlantic's interview, I think this may be enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Transhumanist sources (IEET, H+, SingularityHub etc) are pretty much walled-garden and WP:FRIND applies. The wider stuff is promising though - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient notability; some more sources: [5], [6], [7]. --Fixuture (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established by above commenters. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all this is excellent thank you :-) Can we get these sources properly into the article and get it into shape? - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a basic reception section. I left the majority of the article alone. When there are that many cleanup tags sprinkled throughout an article, it usually means there are content disputes simmering, and I don't really want to get involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, that was me tagging every bad source :-) No, the article's been very quiet for editing (which is the problem really). The sources above are pretty good and I'm pleased to have probably been wrong on this one - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2016 (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.