Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold's Wrecking Co.


 * 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 -- JForget 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Arnold's Wrecking Co.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article declares that the film is not notable. The only claim is that it was Steven E. de Souza's first picture. Delete or merge with Steven E. de Souza.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 
 * Keep article meets core policies. Catchpole (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a stub, but it's worthwhile to keep it. It charts the beginning of both Steven E. de Souza and Scott Kauffman.Dkkicks (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet WP:NF criteria, as is stated in the article itself. Teleomatic (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Comment I was reviewing this for closure, but concensus has not been demonstrated. In order for this article to be deleted under the criteria of the nom, somebody will have to say "I looked for additional sources, but they have not been found".  The keep votes should cite a policy and state why the article meets it.  (They can even cheat and improve the article, to help it meet those polcies.)  It is not helpful to say keep - meets core policies... which ones?  How so? It's not helpful to say "keep (and here's why I like it so much)."  I am relisting it in hopes that within another 5 days it gets more and better participation. JERRY talk contribs 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ok I did a cheat by adding ref to New York Times article and I see this film is covered at the Internet Movie Database which is a listed resource at WP:NF so passes easy IMO. The point Dkkicks makes above also adds to the notability of this film. Sting au  Buzz Me...   00:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - improving an article isn't cheating. Good work on finding the NY Times review.  There is also an LA Times review behind a pay wall.  There are sufficient reliable sources in the form of reviews from major dailies to satisfy notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 18:08, 18 January 2008 (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.