Deletion of The Coven (film)

Comment: I agree with ONUicorn's point that there is too much |original research and that this needs to be removed. The OR relates to the themes section as there is none elsewhere in the article. The |original research does not belong in this article and is not necessary for the article to be coherent. The 'Themes' section can therefore been removed and I have taken this action. On the issue of notability I believe that Schmidt and Stalwart have given good arguments and would recommend that the article is kept with the modifications made. CochraneFaithful  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR)

Comment: Just plain fails the GNG.  NRP is dead on in saying that we don't create articles because someone ''believes'' the subject ''might'' be controversial.  We also don't create articles so that certain parties can have an "unbiased" take on things.  |Wikipedia is not a web host. ''' ''Nha Trang
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Coven_%28film%29&diff=652830259&oldid=652705797 continue cleaning it up. The poor keep argument by {{u|Cochranefaithful}} aside, it does seem the topic is getting coverage to meet . I actually researched and it had some back in 2013 with release of its trailer, and has newer sources and reviews now that it has its DVD release. I agree it does need some serious trimming, but it serves the project and readers by remaining
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF)

Comment: Delete I really want to say keep. I want to help {{ping|Cochranefaithful}} develop this article further.  However, I'm extremely concerned about the amount of |original research still remaining in the article.  Given Cochranefaithful's stated reasons for the article, I'm not convinced s/he will ever be willing to see the article entierly free of OR.   Also, I'm not convinced the references sufficiently establish |notability. Most of them seem to be Capsule reviews, which are specifically cited as "coverage insufficient to fully establish notability" in |the film notability guidelines.  Of the remaining references, two of them are used in the part of the article that is OR to support claims about Cochrane Wicca in general.  That leaves one source, ''Pagan Federation London's'' review, which rises above the level of a capsule review and includes some substantial criticism of the movie from the point of view of Wiccan practitioners.  One source is simply not enough to establish notability for any article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOTFILM||WP:NOTFILM)

Comment: As stated above, we need significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article.  We can't create articles with the expectation that some day in the future they will eventually attract controversy or cultural significance.  It's a flawed method, but it's the best we've currently got.  Unfortunately, blogs and subjective views of importance aren't really applicable to Wikipedia's |inclusion criteria or guideline on |notability for films
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFILM)