Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breathing Room


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Breathing Room

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article tagged in May for notability issues. "Citations" section does not establish notability of film, does not meet criteria for Notability (films). Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete Sounds notable to me, but you can't know that it grossed $500,000 cos there's nothing there to back it up. That rules out its only claim to notability. Special  K (KoЯn flakes) 08:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Temp Weak Keep per improvements noted below as I am giving the article a sandblasting and major cleanup.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With apolgies, I have been away on projects and though have had internet access, have been away from my home resources. Will sandblast this evening and see if it can be made properly encyclopedic.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I have finished cleanup, sourcing, wikifying, adding external links and reviews, etc. The article is better. Needs a few more tweaks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There issue here appears to be the reliability (or not) of the sources. Some discussion of this would helpful for closing this either way. Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the sources listed are okay, for a low budget horror movie. That plus the festival listings make me say the article is good enough to Keep. raven1977 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 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.