Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Gun for Jennifer


 * 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 SNOW keep. Improvements by others have addressed concerns, the nom has changed his opinion to "keep", and there areno oinions toward delete. I offer my congratulations and appreciaton to those who looked for sources and added them to the article. Well done.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A Gun for Jennifer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no references here whatsoever showing notability--only databases known to publish material published by film creators or participants. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Film written by and starring Deborah Twiss that, as the article reports (and cites), received a standing ovation at the Fantasia Festival and has been reviewed by notable sources like the Chicago Reader and reported on by notable sources like Fangoria.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per above.
 * It's very interesting that an IP address has suddenly joined the conversation, which never before today stated something on Wikipedia. Can you please sign your comment? Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This really isn't the place for you to spew your paranoid accusations, Jeremy.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny you again join in tandem with an IP address :) As I said before, I'm AFDing as I believe articles with no assertion of notability have no place on Wikipedia. But that's up for debate; a debate we're currently having. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are no references in this article, if there are some, would you please add them to show the film's notability? Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: A standing ovation is not notable, and I don't see enough in the sources you have numbered in your response to prove notability--mostly unreliable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * IndieWire, Fangoria, and the Chicago Reader are not "mostly unreliable" just because you want them to be. And a standing ovation by itself is not notable, but getting sold out and receiving a standing ovation at one of the biggest film festivals in the world certainly is.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A Google Books search and a Google News search show plenty of coverage of this film. Here, for example, is a review from the New York Times website. The film is notable, and the article should be kept and improved, not deleted. The nominator should refrain from asking other editors to add sources, as the nominator him/herself is free to do so at any time. AfD is not Articles for Cleanup.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the belief that while you or I may be able to find sources that assert notability, the average reader isn't going to--and that we should have some kind of standard for asserting notability beyond "somebody somewhere checked to see if there might be references". Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as there is an expectation that the original writer of an article will add references showing notability to a new article, so also there is an expectation that an AfD nominator will engage in a good faith search for such sources before nominating an article for deletion, and add such sources if found instead of nominating the article at AfD. So in my opinion, you bear as much responsibility here as the original writer, .  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa whoa, no I have no responsibility to carry others here :) How many articles have you improved that others started that you saw off the new articles review list? For me, it's about half. Regardless, of course we should all improve articles, I just have an issue with those that post article after article with the same issue. But again, should we not keep this argument to the notability of this article, and not to your opinion of the nominator? Jeremy112233 (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability of the topic has already been established. I have a long list on my user page of articles I've expanded and referenced after finding them at AfD. I've made no comments about you personally,, but rather about your editing here, which is entirely appropriate. Do you accept the recommendations of WP: BEFORE, or do you dissent from it?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cullen is absolutely correct. BEFORE is not a law, but it's a moral imperative. In other words, "responsibility to carry others"--really, yes. You're not carrying another--you're carrying an article. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The coverage here is light, but it's there and it's enough to show notability to merit an article. I have to echo my statements at another article that AfD is not an appropriate place for cleanup or to bring articles that you have not searched for sources for. When you have editors that continually try to introduce articles that aren't properly sourced, bring it up with the editor on their talk page and if they don't take a nice hint, then ask around for someone else to help talk to the editor and explain notability guidelines. Sometimes the editor in question will deliberately ignore people, but other times it might be confusion over the way things were phrased or they might not understand that it's not your rules, but the general guidelines here. If that doesn't work, then ask an admin to step in and talk to the person in question. Bringing them to AfD might seem like less work, but when you consider the amount of work that goes into arguing a point at AfD and keeping up with the nom, it actually ends up being far more strenuous in the long run. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: As there are now plenty of references on the page, there's no reason to believe the article could be deleted at this point. So I change my vote to keep. Looks great.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and trout the nominator for starting a half dozen of silly and pointy AfDs about obviously notable films not daring to do a minimal WP:BEFORE. With respect, please don't waste our time anymore. Cavarrone 18:30, 9 October 2013 (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.