Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming Soon (2008 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. It is safe to assume that the remaining delete !vote, not giving much of an explanation, will be changed to a keep just like the others as soon as the user sees the changes made. Non-admin closing. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 14:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming Soon (2008 film)

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

Thai movie with no assertion of significance either for itself or for its director. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Delete Declined the A7 because A7 doesn't apply to movies, but agree in its current shape it should be deleted.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep like I said, in it's current state it was not worth keeping, but this is a perfect example of why we have Speedy Deletion criteria that should be followed. The article is now worth keeping.  My hat's off to the people who reworked this.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above; not notable  Chzz  ►  22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep with no disrespects to the nom, as per WP:AFTER I have researched, expanded, and sourced the film's article. The assertion in the article, now well sourced, is that it was the director's debut film. Must have been missed when nominating. That aside, it has had multiple reviews (somehow missed too?), some of which I added to the article's reception section. It was not well received, but it managed to get a lot of coverage.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. As MichaelQSchmidt pointed out, the article was improvable and should have been improved rather than taking here for missing sources. AFD is not cleanup after all. It clearly meets WP:N in its current state, thus making the delete reasons invalid. Regards  So Why  09:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep as nominator, per changes made, but I will seek consensus before I withdraw the nomination altogether. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 11:15, 16 April 2009 (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.