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.
Lack of coverage that would warrant meeting
WP:GNG.
IMDb has only two reviews, by the same author, on what appear to be non-RS websites
Sven ManguardWha? 02:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)reply
STRONG KEEP per
WP:NRVE. Looking beyond the unreliable IMDB, it was easy to discover that numerous independent sources have offered commentary and analysis of the film. WP:GNG and
WP:NF are soundly met. That the article has
not been unimproved is a
reason to do it, but not a valid reason to delete a notable topic. And by the by... it was not the least bit difficult to
add citations. Schmidt,Michael Q. 01:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Note: this improvable little stub is 445 characters (73 words) "readable prose size"... there is sweet DYK waiting here for whomever wishes to expand this. Schmidt,Michael Q. 01:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage, — Cirt (
talk) 06:00, 18 October 2013 (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.
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.
Lack of coverage that would warrant meeting
WP:GNG.
IMDb has only two reviews, by the same author, on what appear to be non-RS websites
Sven ManguardWha? 02:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)reply
STRONG KEEP per
WP:NRVE. Looking beyond the unreliable IMDB, it was easy to discover that numerous independent sources have offered commentary and analysis of the film. WP:GNG and
WP:NF are soundly met. That the article has
not been unimproved is a
reason to do it, but not a valid reason to delete a notable topic. And by the by... it was not the least bit difficult to
add citations. Schmidt,Michael Q. 01:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Note: this improvable little stub is 445 characters (73 words) "readable prose size"... there is sweet DYK waiting here for whomever wishes to expand this. Schmidt,Michael Q. 01:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage, — Cirt (
talk) 06:00, 18 October 2013 (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.