Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazard (2005 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. Reviews of the subject fulfill WP:GNG, and as several ediors noted, such sources were in the article at the time of nomination. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hazard (2005 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article appears to have been added as promotional material for a low-budget, non-notable film. A request for citations to prove notability has gone unanswered since 2008. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep No seems to have RS and GNG with coverage in Asia Pacific Arts and the Japan Times.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 19:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 19:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Definite Keep... In considering WP:NOEFFORT and WP:UGLY, the nominator's complaint that the article sat unsourced is a pretty weak deletion rationale when even a little WP:BEFORE shows sources toward the topic are available... and more, sources need NOT have been in the article for topic notability to exist. Heck... per WP:HANDLE and WP:ATD, he might even have improved it himself.  Of course, now that this AFD has forced cleanup we can close this and move on.  Kudos to User:Tokyogirl79 for showing the spirit that builds an encyclopdia.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above is a personal attack. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel my pointing to WP:ATA or relevant policy is a personal attack, then by all means take this to WP:ANI. Cheers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think your pointing to policies, or the use of the letter Q in your user name, or the fact that it's Saturday today, are personal attacks. However, I do in fact think that your snide remarks are a personal attack. I hope I have clarified this for you. If you have any more queries about what I might or might not think are personal attacks, then please feel free to ask. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was that what was first nominated "had" minor issues that have proven easily addressable through regular editing. Topic notability was met through available sources even before being brought to AFD and article is now improved. Can it be further improved? Sure.  Does it require deletion because of addressable issues with style, format, or sourcing? Nope.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. After a quick search, I was able to find several reviews, especially this one. Clearly notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:16, 18 August 2012 (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.