Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Games


 * 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) ansh 666 23:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Capital Games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete as nominator. Plot-only summary of a film, which makes no substantive claim of notability per WP:NFILMS and is sourced almost entirely to primary sources and blogs -- the closest thing to a reliable source here is its page on Rotten Tomatoes, and that contains zero actual reviews to actually count as media coverage about it. As always, a film is not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists -- but nothing written or sourced here suggests that it's notable enough to have earned one. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No longer "plot only". And a topic's notability is determined through sources being available, not per article content ot the article ever saying "this topic is notable because..."   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If I make a reasonable WP:BEFORE effort to locate improved sourcing (which I did) and come up dry (which I did), it is not my further responsibility to psychically divine that improved sources might actually be available in some specialized location that I don't have access to — things can change if somebody does find and add the proper sourcing, but that fact still doesn't mean I deserve to be condescended to about how notability works. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just fine, and take no offense as my response was not for an experienced editor such as yourself, and was meant for less-experienced-others who visit here who might see your argument as somehow stating that the article must itself state its topic is notable. I perhaps should have simply pointed visitors to WP:NEXIST which clarifies in simpler words. No admonishment was intended.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Had a hard time finding even fringe coverage. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * French release:
 * year/type"
 * producer:
 * director:
 * distributor:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per my work on the article and a bit of digging showing multiple sources covering the film's production... GT Magazine! and Albuquerque Journal for two. There is likely more... and though I do not watch that genre, I am convinced it is worth keeping and improving, not deleting.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your archive link gave the address of the ABQ Journal article search engines couldn't find: . This is probably the strongest source. I also remember there being some rule about fringe coverage, concerning the others. I'm not sure about it now so I'm rescinding my delete. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:19, 31 August 2016 (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.