Talk:Endgame (2007 film)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Advertisement
editThe article wasn't intended to be an advertisement. I noticed the page was deleted straight away. Sorry if it appeared as advertisement. It wasn't my intention. Other documentaries, like zeitgeist have similar pages. My intention was to created a skeleton on which other people could add more information. Can you please undelete it? I will then try to re-write it and add critics to it as well. It took me quite a while to get the box info right and I didn't want to re-write totally from scratch.
thanks Echofloripa (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Deletion history
editIt was deleted twice under the name End Game (2007 film), as {{db-a7}} and as {{db-g11}} but userfied after the last deletion. Another editor, Varks Spira, thinks it's ready for listing, but I'm not convinced. The last deleting editor has no opinion at this time; see User talk:Tom harrison#End Game (2007 film) informal review. WP:DRV suggests that a speedy deletion, when an editor believes it no longer applies, should be recreated with the speedy tag still intact, for further review, so that's what I'm doing.
My opinion is that it still fails {{db-g11}}, but I'm going to defer to the opinion of other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup and rewrite
editWhile personally not wishing to give credence to doomsayers, I have given the article a needed cleanup and wikification, and both added and corrected the references. In my opinion, and even with my not agreeing with the subject matter, I feel the article now meets the inclusion requisites of WP:NF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Well done, I believe it is as impartical as it can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
-- Am I the only one to wonder why the "cinematic gold" reference in the Reception part is put on the "pros" side while it's obviously an ironic remark pulled from an article which mocks the movie? Sorry, I don't want to correct and re-write the whole part since I couldn't be bothered to see it being outdone by some tin foil hat wearer. Cheers. 90.44.211.151 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)