Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Into the Shadows (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rorshacma (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Into the Shadows
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I initially WP:PRODed it with the following rationale: "A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. It is currently unsourced, and I was unable to find any reviews in reliable source. Its only claim to notability in the article is getting second place in a minor film festival award." The PROD was removed with the explanation that it was ineligible as it had previously gone to AFD, though I think this may just be technicality in this case, as the only AFD I could find with the name appears to be about a completely different topic that just happened to have the same name (see here). Rorshacma (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR - Sufficient sources have been found to establish notability, so I am withdrawing the nomination.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Rorshacma (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is borderline, I found a review from SBS News and one from Crikey, which is generally reliable but not the best ref per a RSN discussion (added these to the article, but haven't expanded it). There's also a radio discussion about this film on ABC. It might meet WP:GNG, albeit very weakly, though this definitely fails WP:NFILM criteria 1 (SBS News critic is at least well known enough to be on RT, but the Crikey review and ABC one are certainly not nationally well known) and criteria 3, as it's only a finalist for an audience award, the claim is also unsourced. IMO this is borderline and I'm neutral,, what do you think of these refs? Many thanks! VickKiang 23:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article vastly improved and meets WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Thanks User:Cabrils! VickKiang 02:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd say the SBS review would almost certainly qualify as significant coverage, and, for what its worth, Rotten Tomatoes considers both SBS as a publication and Simon Foster as an individual to be RT certified critics. The Crikey review is much less in-depth, and I am honestly not familiar enough with it to make a clear decision on whether a short review in it would qualify as significant coverage in a reliable source. If other editors believe it would, then I agree that the film would very narrowly pass the WP:GNG. I'll leave this AFD up for now, but if other editors chime in leaning toward Keeping, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to the two above there is others such as a review in the Sun Herald, 1 November 2009 by Tom Ryan. Plus article "Cinemas vanish in shadows" by Rob Bates in Wentworth Courier, 11 November 2009. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. I've added several RS reviews (eg from The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Advertiser), mostly via ProQuest database news search (so apologies to those that can't easily access the reviews). Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM now. Cabrils (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2022 (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.