The result was keep. Snow close, nominator appears to have withdrawn. n DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Film meets few, if any, of the requirements listed for movie notability at WP:MOVIE (no wide release, did not have two or more full-length reviews in national magazines, no obvious historical significance, etc.). Article was nominated for deletion in the past; the Keep result was reportedly skewed by socks. Only two editors appear to be actively editing this page through various sock accounts; one of them has bee banned completely; there does not appear to be any wide interest in the subject matter outside of the one or two editors who regularly edit the page. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ ( talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Although the nominator is correct that a large number of edits to this article were made by the socks described in this SPI complaint, and by myself under this and a previous account ( User:H Debussy-Jones), there have also been been numerous contributions by well-known and established editors. [1], indicating a general acceptance of the film as notable.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that the nominator is a brand-new account, only two days old [2], which raises the possibility that this is a retaliatory nomination by the very sockfarm used as the excuse for the nomination: if I can't edit it, then nobody can being a negative aspect of ownership. I would suggest that the article be kept, and that User:AncientTrekkie be checkusered. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I am all for an admin closing out this nomination with a Keep and I will then remove the badge from the page so we can collectively attempt to improve articles accuracy. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Snow close, nominator appears to have withdrawn. n DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Film meets few, if any, of the requirements listed for movie notability at WP:MOVIE (no wide release, did not have two or more full-length reviews in national magazines, no obvious historical significance, etc.). Article was nominated for deletion in the past; the Keep result was reportedly skewed by socks. Only two editors appear to be actively editing this page through various sock accounts; one of them has bee banned completely; there does not appear to be any wide interest in the subject matter outside of the one or two editors who regularly edit the page. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ ( talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Although the nominator is correct that a large number of edits to this article were made by the socks described in this SPI complaint, and by myself under this and a previous account ( User:H Debussy-Jones), there have also been been numerous contributions by well-known and established editors. [1], indicating a general acceptance of the film as notable.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that the nominator is a brand-new account, only two days old [2], which raises the possibility that this is a retaliatory nomination by the very sockfarm used as the excuse for the nomination: if I can't edit it, then nobody can being a negative aspect of ownership. I would suggest that the article be kept, and that User:AncientTrekkie be checkusered. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I am all for an admin closing out this nomination with a Keep and I will then remove the badge from the page so we can collectively attempt to improve articles accuracy. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ ( talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply