Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Rod Girls Save The World


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hot Rod Girls Save The World

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

Non-notable film; fails WP:MOVIE. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  13:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable indie film, no awards, no film festival screenings, no IMDB entry, and most importantly, no non-trivial third party sources Mr Senseless (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone did not look? Or were you only referring to the article not sourcing those very assertions? Per WP:AFTER I found the festival screenings. I found the IMDB listing. I found the film reviews. I found the cast and crew and music informations. So I did the copyedit per film MOS to bring it into line with standrads.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per improved article and more that can be done as the film recieves additional notice.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no awards, no wide-spread non-trivial coverage. Clear fail on WP:MOVIE.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. The review comes from "Film Threat" which promises to review every and any movie mailed to it, per here . So that site can't help with notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note about Film Threat: A respected film magazine (now online) that has an an article on wiki, has been around since 1985, has an editorial staff with a reputation for fact-checking, most definitely helps with establishing notabiliy for a released and distributed film. That they encourage filmmakers to get their films looked at does nothing to denigrate the quality of their work... no more that a major news agency acting from "tips" in developing and creating a report. Reliability comes from the processes involved in the work, as with all reliable sources. With respects, any opinion to the contrary should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard, rather than here when attempting to discredit the article. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It meets one of the suggested requirements for notability, having reviews in legitimate third party media sources.  D r e a m Focus  22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sources seem to meet WP:N. I don't know of a requirement that sources need to be picky about what they write about, so I'm not seeing the issue with Film Threat.  But even without it, there is enough to write an article on and meet our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - good cleanup; passes WP:N now.  R ad io pa th y  •talk• 19:27, 11 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.