- 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. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Zombie in a Penguin Suit
- Zombie in a Penguin Suit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film. Wikipedia is for established items, not "Up and Coming" films. Additionally, other stuff exists. The bottom line is the film fails to meet the criteria in WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix ( talk) 21:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as cited in the article. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 00:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm finding quite a bit of hits for it, although I do note that most of these are very short articles. What works in its favor is that some of these are mini-reviews as well as articles. ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep passes general notability per sources which are already included in the article. Tokyogirl79's reviews above are also valid. Cavarrone 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Well, "substantial" is a bit of an overstatement. WP:NFILM specifically discounts capsule reviews, and none of these reviews are longer than a few sentences. Whether it passes the WP:GNG is up for debate, however. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I think the Fast Company article qualifies as substantive coverage; the rest, maybe not, but I don't mind adding them all up to show some marginal notability. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The article explains a film that was generally well-known when it was released on the web, and it has a full cast and crew to go along with it. It deserves to stand amongst other short film-related Wikipedia articles, especially considering those other such articles are more unnecessary and have less notability to help them to be thought as relevant. -- Matthew ( talk) 01:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Zombie in a Penguin Suit
- Zombie in a Penguin Suit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film. Wikipedia is for established items, not "Up and Coming" films. Additionally, other stuff exists. The bottom line is the film fails to meet the criteria in WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix ( talk) 21:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as cited in the article. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 00:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm finding quite a bit of hits for it, although I do note that most of these are very short articles. What works in its favor is that some of these are mini-reviews as well as articles. ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep passes general notability per sources which are already included in the article. Tokyogirl79's reviews above are also valid. Cavarrone 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Well, "substantial" is a bit of an overstatement. WP:NFILM specifically discounts capsule reviews, and none of these reviews are longer than a few sentences. Whether it passes the WP:GNG is up for debate, however. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I think the Fast Company article qualifies as substantive coverage; the rest, maybe not, but I don't mind adding them all up to show some marginal notability. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The article explains a film that was generally well-known when it was released on the web, and it has a full cast and crew to go along with it. It deserves to stand amongst other short film-related Wikipedia articles, especially considering those other such articles are more unnecessary and have less notability to help them to be thought as relevant. -- Matthew ( talk) 01:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.