Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birds of Prey (1973 film)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Birds of Prey (1973 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

After cutting the trivia and unsourced claims, there isn't a whole lot left. The two sources, while reliable, aren't enough to demonstrate SIGCOV and there are no reviews. Any online presence has been overshadowed by the association with the female Batman villains. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film,  and Utah. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG.   I have added references to two full length newspaper pieces to the article, one was a detailed review in the Los Angeles Times, the other was a detailed article about some of the filmmaking techniques used in the movie, particularly the challenge of flying two helicopters inside a hangar in close proximity at the same time.  RecycledPixels (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But does it meet WP:NFILM? At least one of those sources seems to be WP:TRIVCOV. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting you would say that, did you look at either of them? Both are significant coverage.  I am interested to find out which of them you consider trivial or passing mentions.   RecycledPixels (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at 1, 3, & 4. One sources nothing more than the film's budget and the others are basically movie trivia. SIGCOV means "more than a trivial mention." Looks like this thing aired on TV once about 50 years ago and sank w/o a trace. Even if two critics reviewed it, that means it barely squeaks by one of the five different notability criteria and I just don't think that's enough. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. To add to above, there seems likely to be a full length review from the UK, though Google books snippets are failing me right now &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is a review at DVD Talk  Donald D23   talk to me  14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Have enough references of reviews with good coverage. Strivedi1 (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Strivedi1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have added a couple more references. There are plenty more in contemporary newspapers. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources including reviews identified in this discussion for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this coverage, with the references added by Siroxo, is sufficient. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2023 (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.