Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Short of Perfect


 * 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. ✗ plicit  11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Just Short of Perfect

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

per WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent reliable sources, reviews cited in article other than Leisure Byte are non-notable blog reviews and do not contribute to the notability of the film BOVINEBOY 2008 09:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 10:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 10:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reviews at Leisure Byte and Common Sense Media (a WP:RS) are included in article. Passes WP:NFILM Donald D23   talk to me  12:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I disagree about Common Sense Media being unreliable. There is also this foreign language review. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are saying CSM is reliable or unreliable, but it is listed as a Wikipedia reliable source at . Consensus has ruled it is reliable for film reviews. Donald D23   talk to me  12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I clearly said that I disagree with the nominator that the website is unreliable. I also voted keep. I'm not sure how there is any confusion. SL93 (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agree with two previous posters. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources currently used are the best available for the film, and they sufficiently satisfy WP:RS. I also like to keep in mind WP:BIAS, and particularly WP:SBEXT, which notes that availability of sources is not uniform across topics and languages, specifically noting foreign-language publications. In addition, I believe there's been a solid good faith effort here to use the sources available. For all the reasons above, I am highly opposed to deleting the page on NF grounds. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agree with the previous posters. – Csurla (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * KeepAs per points made above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2021 (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.