Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gypsy 83


 * 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 and close of an unnecessary AFD. My reasons: 1. quotes the "unreliable" IMDB for budgets stats, 2. does not show understanding (yet) that film notability is dependent upon coverage, not upon budget. 3. incorrectly asserts a (sourcable) topic's not being sourced as a reason for deletion, when it is not, 4. repeatedly ignores WP:BEFORE (when he he actually looked he would have found multiple sources to meet WP:NF through WP:GNG), 5. seems to be unaware of WP:NRVE's instruction that topic notability is dependent upon sources being available and not upon their use or not within an article, 6. AFD is not to be used as a bludgeon to force improvements, and 7. WP:ATD tells us that deletion is not the best solution to addressable issues. In closing this, I urge the nominator to seek a mentor. Per WP:Deletion policy, I will be tagging the article for work. And to while  might withdraw, blatantly unnecessary AFDs are disruptive to the project.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Gypsy 83

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NF; IMDB notes less than $30,000 gross box. A number of awards from non-notable "festivals". No RS.  Pax 05:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, let alone WP:BEFORE, have you checked the Rotten Tomatoes link (which is actually the only reference in the article)? While RT is only a review aggregator, in this case it includes/links reviews from Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, Variety, L.A. Weekly, Dallas Morning News, San Francisco Chronicle and more... I think it is enough for a claim of notability, withdrawal suggested. Cavarrone 11:29, 9 January 2015 (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.