Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alone in the Neon Jungle


 * 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Alone in the Neon Jungle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Decline PROD, ping Premeditated Chaos. Article failing WP:FILM with one editor said the film never actually been released for a speculation and also undersourced as well. Sheldybett (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, obviously, since I was the PROD nominator. (PROD rationale was "Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM. No in-depth reviews found on search (regular Google search + Newspapers.com). As a made-for-TV-movie, it was never widely released, and it doesn't meet any other NFILM qualifications."), I have to admit I'm having trouble with your reasoning for declining the PROD in the first place. Neither your your edit summary for the PROD removal nor your nomination here give any indication that you dispute or disagree with my PROD rationale, so I can't understand why you would go to the trouble of taking this to AfD when you don't seem to actually want the article kept. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Same thing happened recently at Articles for deletion/Kiwiberri. Seems like a basic misunderstanding of PROD. Bakazaka (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: the film may meet WP:FILM '1. The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics'. I have cited two reviews in the lead. One, by Tom Shales, definitely meets this criterion. The other is by someone called Joan Hanauer, who may or may not be considered a nationally known critic; some of her other work is listed at https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/joan-hanauer/movies. Personally, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and keep it. Alarichall (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire content of Hanauer's review of Neon Jungle is one sentence at the very bottom of that article. There is no universe in which a single sentence qualifies as a full-length review. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's the last four paragraphs. I do recognise, though, that this may not be seen as a full-length review. Alarichall (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, the entire portion which represents any critical appraisal of the film. The rest is regurgitation of plot and production information. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 *  Delete - as per nomination, no valid sources found.  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do you not consider The Washington Post, United Press International, or Chicago Tribune "valid sources"?


 * 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.