Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choker(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. The page has been dramatically improved during the course of the AfD resulting in a clear consensus to keep this article. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Choker(film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Film article with no sources and nothing to indicate what makes it notable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete . While IMDB isn't a reliable source, the fact that it doesn't have an article on this film suggests that the film is not notable. Pburka (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421983/ The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd. I could have sworn it wasn't there yesterday. Regardless, I still believe the film is not notable. Pburka (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Change to keep given the recent improvements to the article. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - notability is not established here. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have changed my vote to keep after reading Schmidt's comments. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I found zero sources. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep: Per Schmidt. SL93 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep With respects to the nominator and above editors, the film was titled Choker only during its 2005 festival run, and yes... such a comon name makes searches quite difficult. But when released by MTI Home Video on DVD in 2006, it was titled Disturbance in the U.S. and B.E.I.N.G. in the UK.  Armed with THAT information, independent secondary sources addressing the film directly AND in detail are much easier to find. I immediately found quite substantive reviews in  JoBLo and Film Critics United and evidence of several other decent reviews... including one in Fangoria. What was nominated one-day after being created by a two-edit account is already looking better and more encyclopedic.  This will take more work certainly, but adressable issues are rarely cause for deletion and WP:NF is met.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  D r e a m Focus  03:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Once again, the all knowing film god MichaelQSchmidt has saved a movie article.   D r e a m Focus  03:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also found Terror Hook and Film Monthly but I could use help in tracking down that Fangoria review.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep--I'm not totally impressed with the strength of the sources, and it seems to me that they're milked for all they're worth (sorry MQS!), but I think they suggest notability. Actually, I think we have SNOW here. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We glean what we can without creating synthesis, so no apologies neccessary. :) I could use help in tracking down that Fangoria review.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:40, 16 September 2011 (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.