Talk:Explorer (film)

Non-consensus move to draft
This article was reviewed as fit for article space 22 days ago, but moved from published back to draft space on 26th Sept with no clear explanation and no attempt to reach consensus. This included no attempt to articulate and explain issues on the talk page. One of the tags added to the page is lack of WP:N. It is clear from the references that there are third party reviews of the film in reputable journalist publications. A quick google finds more, including The Times, Financial Times, Telegraph, and Empire. Notability is independent of references in the article - see WP:NEXIST. Therefore with at least 6 third party articles on the subject therefore clearly meets WP:N. I concur there are likely issues with the article as is (it is very much a stub) but one expects these to be articulated on the talk page first. Turner537 (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing
The sources being removed, and which I put back in this edit are reliable. WP:BRD. WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR. Cheers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello . As per the Edit Summaries, the issue is not whether the sources are reliable or not. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries do not provide clear WP:BRD discussion for the edits you have made - such as this one []. Please explain and articulate on the issues that you are identifying, as these are unclear.  The text put back in via [] is supported by RS as per . ResonantDistortion (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)