Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Errand of Angels

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Errand of Angels

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

Per source searches, this film does not meet WP:NFP. Available sources are primary, and not finding significant coverage in independent reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this film's inclusion in this Salt Lake Tribune's top-10 list of LDS-related films. ~Awilley (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Coverage in the above-linked The Salt Lake Tribune article is not significant coverage at all; it consists of two short sentences. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a full article from the other large regional newspaper. I'm actually not well-versed on film notability guidelines. Is there a certain number of sources/articles/reviews that typically makes something notable? ~Awilley (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Awilley has indentified multiple cases of coverage in indepedent coverage. Also I found this [1] review from the BYU Studies Quaterly, a reliable, scholarly, peer-edited publication that reviews works from an academic perspective. Most reviews are of academic books, so the fact that this film received a review shows that it was respected in certain circles. Here is another review by Meridian Magazine [2]. None of these publications are in any way controlled by Vuissa, and although a few are controlled by the LDS Church, which also owns Excel Entertainment that distributed the film, Excel Entertainment's leadership itself has no control or power over the decisions made by any of the other LDS publications involved as citation sources. I'm not sure how reliable of a source dove.org is, or how comprehensive their level of reviewing is, but here is a review by them [3].John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2017 (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.