Jump to content

Talk:Passage to Zarahemla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

The article appears to fail WP:N and WP:MOVIE. If we cannot find reliable, independent sources on the movie, the article should be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the following the film is notable. 1.The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)[6]
As the only fictional representation of the Book of Mormon in cinema history, the project is noteworthy. Also, it's mark upon LDS culture, the fact that it has worldwide distribution through international distributors and is playing in television venues to non-LDS audiences in Japan, Bulgaria, Romania, South America, and Russia. These details probably ought to be mentioned in the article. I will do so in the next day or two, or I would invite others to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgiaPeaches (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find reliable sources to verify the information that you mention, then we might be able to keep the article from being deleted. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this article is notable. While the LDS market might not be as large as Hollywood, it does have it's place. An encyclopedia should be interested in any article that is of value to any group of people. The LDS population is currently around 15,000,000 members world wide. Articles that help inform this group are just as important as articles that inform Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Artists, Doctors, etc.
I would hope that Wikipedia would consider all markets including smaller markets. I would agree that this article needs more information, but I do think it is appropriate to leave here. Having said that, what needs to happen to help it conform better to Wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueglobe (talk • contribs) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a venue for marketing or promotion - WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Ronz, I didn't mean to sound like I wanted an advertisement. I simply think that this and other LDS based movies are just as notable to LDS users of Wikipedia as, say, Fiddler on the Roof was to the Jewish Community. I truly want to conform to Wikipedia's policies. But I would hate to see useful information removed when it is valuable to a group of users. I also asked what needed to happen to this article, in your eyes, that would help it to safe relevant.Blueglobe (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I just want to make it clear why it's so important to get the notability criteria met.
As I pointed out earlier, we need reliable sources the verify the information currently in the article and demonstrate the notability of the topic. Starting a list of potential sources here on the talk page is a good intermediate step. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources and material are clearly notable! Anything that is not sited can be found within the film credits itself or on the accompanying soundtrack. On Heimerdinger's main article this information was put up recently - referencing to a NUMBER of shopping sites that will list this sort of thing, and it was considered to be "invalid." Newspapers do not publish track listings, television stations do not publish track listings, magazines do not publish track listings, media outlets do publish track listings. Credits are CLEARLY located on the film, the case, and even on the IMDB page for that movie. If you are going to cite that something is not notable, then you must state way. Your reasons for recent revision has NO basis. There is no "current" talk of notability that is disputed, other than by one or two individuals.--FireandFlames17 (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please list what sources we have that meets WP:MOVIE. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Sources

[edit]

At Ronz request I will start a list of Sources for this article. I know there are more but I haven't the time to continue looking right now. I will try to add more soon. Blueglobe (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually used as a source. Already listed in External links. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a blog, this doesn't meet WP:EL, let alone WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a WP:RS --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Looks like some useful sources other than those I've indicated above.

I've only skimmed them so far, but I don't see any that help with the WP:MOVIE criteria. Best to point out any that might. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Film template at the top of this page in the hope we can get further opinions on the notability of this movie. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Given most of the article is completely unsourced, and that only two of the sources are independent, we need to find more independent, reliable sources (perhaps from the list above), and use these new sources to properly write the article per WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English

[edit]

i think the article needs to include why the people speak english. in the books by Chris Hiemerdinger the people who traveled time where granted the gifts of tongues meaning everything they heard or said was turned into thier native language in our case english.==/ very important please include\== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.28.25 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Passage_to_Zarahemla&oldid=1216435606"