Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogtown (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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hogtown (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was an "upcoming" film some years ago but it is hard to work out if it ever surfaced. The refs are very niche and two look like regurgitated press releases. Nothing here appears to satisfy WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I removed one of the reviews from the reception section since it was quoted from this article, which was written the month before the screening. The description gives off the impression that the author could have seen Hogtown, but there's no guarantee that they did. I'd consider it usable as a RS to show notability but just not as a review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and put it back. The detail of the removed article makes it clear it was based upon a quite common instance of his seeing a pre-release screener.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It looks like it did screen in 2014 and it received some reviews from various different outlets. I'd say that there's enough for it to pass NFILM now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep Was this rewritten since it's nomination for deletion? Looking at it now appears fine. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sound Keep of a released film receiving media attention in enough reliable sources to meet WP:NF, and encourage a far more diligent WP:BEFORE prior to nominations. I have a very difficult time with the nominators's conception that The Chicago Sun-Times and The Chicago Tribune and The Gene Siskel Film Center are somehow "niche " references. And with gratitude,  deserves a hearty thanks for her actual true diligence!   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:46, 8 December 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.