Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Go to the Reunion


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rorshacma (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't Go to the Reunion

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

An independent film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NFILM. The only two references being used are unacceptable for establishing notability, merely being the official website and its Amazon sales page, and I was unable to find any coverage or reviews of the film in reliable sources after searches. Rotten Tomatoes only has one critic review included as well, and the source it is from is one that I am not sure qualifies as a reliable publication for the purposes of establishing notability. As the writer, director, and production company all appear to be non-notable themselves, there is no appropriate article for a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAWN by Nominator - As shown by ReaderofthePack, this one does seem to have just enough coverage to squeak by WP:NFILM, and as no one else has commented to advocate deletion, I am going to go ahead and Withdraw this nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Cinema Crazed is typically seen as a RS. It's not as major of an outlet as Dread Central or Bloody Disgusting, but Vasquez's reviews are usable from my experience. I also added one from Horror Society, also generally seen as a RS. I'm trying to add more since I'd rather it be a stronger article as a whole before I put an official argument forwards. On a side note, it is mentioned in this bizarre article from the NYT, where it just list titles. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wish there was a tad bit more coverage here since I would rather have more, this does squeak by notability guidelines for films at this point in time. The sources aren't the most prominent outlets, but they're generally all seen as reliable. I'm not fond or proud of using AICN as a source, though. I think that they're still seen as RS, but they are extremely bottom of the barrel as far as sourcing goes. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I actually did run across that NYT piece in my searches, but didn't mention it since, like you said, it basically just lists its title. I was not sure on Cinema Crazed or Horror Society being considered reliable sources, but if they are, then I agree that this probably just manages to get past the bare minimum requirements. I will leave this discussion up for a while longer, to give others a chance to comment if they want, but will withdraw if no one else argues for deletion within the next day or two. Rorshacma (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2022 (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.