Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booked Out


 * 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 speedy keep per nominator's withdraw; see WP:SK. (Non-admin closure.) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Booked Out

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unfortunately, this film does not meet WP:GNG and also WP:MOVIE. There are no independent sources and the only WP:RS found was about the director (see article talk page) and is only a passing mention of the movie. Just not enough to even come close to notability. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as the film has been reviewed by The Guardian as seen here. It was also reviewed by the Evening Standard as seen here. The Scotsman reviewed it here. Screen Daily covered the film's distribution here. What do you think, ? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see the reviews. I am reluctant, as if we use reviews then just about every movie would qualify for an article. However, you seem to have more edits in this area. What does The Project say about using reviews as sources? Would be glad to withdraw if there has been a previous consensus about using reviews for movies. Let me know. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We want to determine a topic's notability through reliable sources per WP:GNG. In this case, we want to use reviews published by reliable sources, such as the ones I mentioned above. This film actually had a lot of reviews from sources that would not be considered reliable, as seen here. (Though that is where I found the review by The Guardian as part of my research.) Check out Articles for deletion/Reboot (2012 film), for example. There were a few reviews of that film as seen here, but none of them were considered reliable. Hope that kind of threshold makes sense. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear as mud. :) Let me make it simple (at least for me anyways)....would the project consider the sources you found good enough to meet the WP:RS guidelines for WP:GNG? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe they would. We have The Guardian, the Evening Standard, The Scotsman, and Screen Daily (not a review but did provide coverage). We tend to count print sources and what they publish on the web to be reliable. Web-only sources are questioned a little more. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry, logged off before your last message. Hate to eat and sleep or something like that. Anyways, thanks for pointing this out to me. I am new and learning and now I know what the community thinks in regards to these references for movies. As such, I will withdraw the nomination. Sorry for the mistake. As far as the article, I came across it by trying to clean up tagged articles. I hate when people pull hit and runs with the ugly tags. and yes, I do understand that not everyone has the time to clean up articles and articles should not be punished for people not cleaning them up. It makes Wikipedia look like crap and makes it look unreliable. When I come across an article like this I like to clean it up if it is at all possible. That is why this was nominated as I could not locate the sources that I felt met the WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS guidelines. Anyways...I'm done venting. Thanks again for pointing out the error. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking beyond present state (Thank you Erik) we can see the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:Notability (films) through commentary, coverage, and analysis in multiple independent reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAW - Based on policy based reasoning pointed out above, I would like to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Sorry for the time waster. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:36, 10 May 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.