Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down by the Riverside (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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Down by the Riverside (film)

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

Contested prod. New Zealand movie. No assertion of notability. Delete. Change to Keep per the rescue effort. Awaiting consensus before withdrawing altogether.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original prodder. Limited content and no evidence of notability. No reason given for deprodding. PC78 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — Lacks sources and does not notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets criteria for Notability (films). I have added info to the article which now is a decent stub article. I have also added links to for external reviews Terrorfeed.com: Review, The Big Idea: Review, Audience, Withoutabox: Review and Arovideo: Review which more than meets the criteria for notability. Wordssuch (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it fails every one of the listed criteria. Which of the criteria does it meet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for more sourcing. Adding to User:Wordssuch's work, I have expanded and further sourced the article to give it the content it was missing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, since it has been expanded and sourced by Wordssuch and MichaelQSchmidt. I'm not convinced that the sources are wholly independent from the producers; eg Scoop is just publishing a press release, but the nomination for "Best Foreign Feature" at the B-Movie Film Festival in New York convinces me that it's notable.- gadfium 04:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now - good rescue effort. dramatic (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Granite thump (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Quistisffviii (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails every one of the criteria in WP:MOVIE. Fails general notability guideline. There is not a single review from a reliable source. One of the references was actually a press release, which I've now replaced. This just ain't notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin –, who has !voted above, has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of . See Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive. MuZemike 16:36, 26 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.