Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson's Cross


 * 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) 00:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Anderson's Cross

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced article by WP:SPA. After several years, there is still no sign of meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. It mentions (but doesn't back up) the claims) that it has won two awards at what seem to be obscure/non-notable film festivals. I could find little except bad reviews. Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 09:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This bears investigation, for coverage is coverage and film notability is not dependent upon only "positive" review. I'll be back.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 17:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not seeing the reviews to make this notable: most are blogs/personal websites. There isn't even a Rotten Tomatoes page for it. And if this isn't notable, director Jerome Elston Scott probably isn't notable either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @ & :  A listing or not in Rotten Tomatoes is not an inclusion criteria for Wikiedia. But lengthy reviews in such as DVD Verdict Moving Pictures Magazine and LA Splash Magazine and more-than-trival mentions in Film Monthly and Reel Talk are. And too, we have Media Mikes and What Would Toto Watch. Still looking. Still working. PS: Jerome Elston Scott is notable.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 15:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has now been substantially improved, despite my failure to have reviews in usual sources (Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb are normally good sources for finding reviews, but don't seem to have included significant coverage in this case). Since Scott's notability is largely dependent on the notability of this film, that would mean he's notable too. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per my own research showing this project as meeting WP:NF through WP:NRVE. Even though AFD is not intended to force improvement, I will be expanding and sourcing the article a bit later. Wikipedia will be improved. .  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 15:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. There's enough here to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, lots of secondary source coverage and discussion. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 19:02, 2 June 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.