- 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 Uell Stanley Andersen. Judgment call: SoWhy proposes a merge and perhaps we can give that main article the benefit of the doubt. Drmies ( talk) 12:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
3 Magic Words
- 3 Magic Words ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFILM. The film was not widely distributed. The film has not received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is not historically notable. The film has received no major awards. The film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive. The film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. jps ( talk) 17:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep:The film features two notable New York times best selling authors in the self-help and personal development field, Neale Donald Walsch and Debbie Ford who have both appeared in various films on the same subject matter. The film was also widely distributed by Warner Bros. Digital Distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Starseed ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- The rule on Wikipedia is WP:NOTINHERITED which is to say that just because notable people are in the film doesn't mean the film itself is notable. The other claim is that via distribution through Warner Bros. Digital Distribution, the film is therefore "widely distributed". However the digital distribution subsidiary of Warner Bros. releases so much content online that I don't think this is a valid point. "Widely distributed" media needs to have independent evidence of distribution in a fashion that is comparable other "widely distributed" content which Wikipedia has articles about. As it is, the only evidence I can find that the film is distributed through this company is through the press releases of the filmmaker, and independent (or even Warner Bros.-based) statistics about the distribution's reach is information I cannot find either. jps ( talk) 15:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- DeleteNot finding anything to establish notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: I found no notability per WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 19:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
KeepComment:The film 3 Magic Words was based on the classic book, Three Magic Words (1972) by Uell Stanley Andersen and therefore is historically notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Starseed ( talk • contribs)
- The book is non-notable, and was written decades before the movie was made. It has nothing to do with historical notability per WP:NOTINHERITED among others. Grayfell ( talk) 20:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also that does not establish notability for the film, only that it could be included as an adaption of the book, in the books page. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. Non-notable. Grayfell ( talk) 20:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - looks to fail WP:NFILM. Not clear Uell Stanley Anderson meets WP:BIO either, but as with anyone who died before the Web, more research is in order... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's spelt
Uell Stanley Andersen. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 09:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- And is about as unsourced an article as I have ever seen. I am getting a strong AFD vibe from that as well. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's spelt
Uell Stanley Andersen. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 09:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete — Finding reviews of the film is difficult which is an indication of low notability. — Paleo Neonate - 03:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Uell Stanley Andersen. Afaict he is notable enough. Regards So Why 07:48, 14 July 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.
- 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 Uell Stanley Andersen. Judgment call: SoWhy proposes a merge and perhaps we can give that main article the benefit of the doubt. Drmies ( talk) 12:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
3 Magic Words
- 3 Magic Words ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFILM. The film was not widely distributed. The film has not received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is not historically notable. The film has received no major awards. The film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive. The film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. jps ( talk) 17:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep:The film features two notable New York times best selling authors in the self-help and personal development field, Neale Donald Walsch and Debbie Ford who have both appeared in various films on the same subject matter. The film was also widely distributed by Warner Bros. Digital Distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Starseed ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- The rule on Wikipedia is WP:NOTINHERITED which is to say that just because notable people are in the film doesn't mean the film itself is notable. The other claim is that via distribution through Warner Bros. Digital Distribution, the film is therefore "widely distributed". However the digital distribution subsidiary of Warner Bros. releases so much content online that I don't think this is a valid point. "Widely distributed" media needs to have independent evidence of distribution in a fashion that is comparable other "widely distributed" content which Wikipedia has articles about. As it is, the only evidence I can find that the film is distributed through this company is through the press releases of the filmmaker, and independent (or even Warner Bros.-based) statistics about the distribution's reach is information I cannot find either. jps ( talk) 15:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- DeleteNot finding anything to establish notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: I found no notability per WP:NF. SL93 ( talk) 19:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
KeepComment:The film 3 Magic Words was based on the classic book, Three Magic Words (1972) by Uell Stanley Andersen and therefore is historically notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Starseed ( talk • contribs)
- The book is non-notable, and was written decades before the movie was made. It has nothing to do with historical notability per WP:NOTINHERITED among others. Grayfell ( talk) 20:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also that does not establish notability for the film, only that it could be included as an adaption of the book, in the books page. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. Non-notable. Grayfell ( talk) 20:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - looks to fail WP:NFILM. Not clear Uell Stanley Anderson meets WP:BIO either, but as with anyone who died before the Web, more research is in order... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's spelt
Uell Stanley Andersen. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 09:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- And is about as unsourced an article as I have ever seen. I am getting a strong AFD vibe from that as well. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's spelt
Uell Stanley Andersen. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 09:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete — Finding reviews of the film is difficult which is an indication of low notability. — Paleo Neonate - 03:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Uell Stanley Andersen. Afaict he is notable enough. Regards So Why 07:48, 14 July 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.