Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Man Down


 * 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 Draftify. There is very little useful in the Keep votes here, the first one admits to being WP:IAR, the second one is per the first one, and the third is merely "here's what I found on Google". However I don't see any harm in draftifying it so that it can be improved, if that is indeed possible. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Last Man Down

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

Film seems unlikely to meet WP:NFILM- coverage is limited to WP:ROUTINE reviews following its release. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — Doesn’t meet GNG which is quite sufficient and a parameter to ascertain the notability status of a film. Furthermore WP:NFOE nor any other inclusionary criterion isn’t quite met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR and WP:CREEP. I’m unable to see how the encyclopedia or reader experience is improved by following the destructive Afd and notability guidelines which indicate this and many other informative and factually accurate articles need to be deleted. The guidelines need to be revamped to remove their destructive effects, but in the meantime we must simply ignore them per IAR, a pillar policy. —В²C ☎ 07:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . WP:GNG is a well established policy which has been subject to lots of discussion. Could you please explain which part of it is excessively instructive? And why this specific film is a special case affected by the issue (WP:IAR is typically used as a last resort)? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think GNG means well to avoid misuse. But I think “significant coverage” needs to be measured differently depending on the topic area. For example, the bar for significant coverage for a biography should be much higher than for a film. Let’s define an “obscure” topic to be one not meeting GNG. I think the benefit of excluding articles about obscure people is obvious. The value of not having articles about obscure films is not obvious at all. To the contrary. I mean, if we can establish the name, year, cast, and production company for a film, why not have at least a stub with that info it?  Does that make sense? Right now if we blindly follow the rules, articles like this one have to be deleted. But other than to follow the rules, why? How is the encyclopedia or anyone better off with this article deleted? Aren’t they worse off due to such deletions? I think so.   —В²C ☎ 07:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. It seems to me that your disagreement is with WP:GNG itself, rather than being specific to this article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that’s why I’m invoking IAR. The encyclopedia is worsened by strictly following GNG and deleting this article. —-В²C ☎ 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Born2cycle Donald D23   talk to me  14:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Still fails WP:NF. Long-time editors should realize that their keep will be skipped over by the closing admin if it's not based on notability guidelines. SL93 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I haven’t spent much time at Afd and I see that. But there’s something very wrong here when we’re deleting articles about bonafide films that readers are likely to look up, if only to find out there’s little known about them. That needs to be fixed. —В²C ☎ 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Wikipedia wasn't made for everything verifiable ever since its creation. SL93 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The contents of this article are verifiable. You can even buy it on Amazon or watch it on Prime. Not having an article about it is ridiculous. —В²C ☎ 07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't verifiable. I'm saying that Wikipedia doesn't need to change to have everything that is verifiable because that was not the intention when Wikipedia started. SL93 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I agree WP doesn’t need to have everything verifiable. But I do think everything verifiable within certain categories of topics does belong in WP. That should include produced/distributed films, as well as, for example, cities and species. The bottom line is anything people are likely to look for and seek information about belongs here. I mean, why not? How is it not improved if we do that? —В²C ☎ 15:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fundamentally, I disagree with the way IAR is invoked here. Stubs don't benefit Wikipedia, they just disappoint readers. If all we can do is write a stub because expanding would require original research, then there's no point to keeping this article. We should be careful about whether we're invoking WP:IAR or WP:ILIKEIT. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think either one of us can speak for all readers, but I for one certainly appreciate the information provided in a stub like this one, and rarely read full WP articles, especially about films. I want the gist of what it's about, when it was produced, who's in it, and that's about it. This stub already has all that. I can get the rest if I decide to watch it based on that. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Far from. If there's a full article on a film I'm almost certain to only skim it for the kind of information that's in this stub. And, frankly, I think this one is already beyond stub level. --В²C ☎ 07:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this topic is better suited to IMDB.com than Wikipedia. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also indisputably a stub, at 430 characters of prose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The appropriate activity on a WP:STUB article is expansion (when possible), but certainly not deletion. I’m baffled by this predilection to delete. —В²C ☎ 16:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to draft to incubate for six months, to see whether additional sources are found or developed in that time. BD2412  T 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. In just a few moments of searching I found multiple sources.Super (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This film has a few actors that are notable and have their own articles. I see no reason why this needs to be deleted? Also, Admins shouldn't be skipping over any vote period and if Admins are tossing community consensus out the window and doing as they please then thats not right. There are multiple sources that can easily be found  . I could keep listing sources but that's three, which is what we need. I have seen Rotten Tomatoes listing used to justify a keep alone. Super (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The rotten tomatoes entry is routine, and the hollywood reporter source isn't more in detail than "this is a movie with actors. the actors have names and the movies have a release date". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/ she? ) 06:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify, per BD2412. From what I see, there is no consensus on meeting a specific notability guide but there are those who believe that better referenced information is available. Rather than remove the content, albeit sparse, better to give it a chance for improvement in draft space. Ifnord (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, and I can't speak for others, although of course I see room for improvement in the article, I see nothing but goodness in leaving it as it is as opposed to removing (whether as deletion or move to draft). In its current state, it is literally infinitely better than nothing, and no one in this discussion has said anything to counter this point. --В²C ☎ 06:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are a work of the collective. The collective maintains, improves, categorizes, presents, and curates the article. If every remotely potentially encyclopedic topic were included, the collective's energy would be spread too thin, and the quality of articles would be worse overall. To combat this, we ask ourselves the question "if this article were expanded as much as possible without violating our policy against original research, how large would this article be?" If the highest potential for an article, with all of the sourcing out there, is still a stub, then yes, keeping it on principle would harm the project's ability to present cohesive, comprehensive, and useful information to the reader. In other words, Wikipedia is not and should not be an indiscriminate collection of information. We can't spend energy on every film that has ever existed, every book, every television show, every song, every person, when for 99% of all the things and people in the world, there's nothing we can say about them. We should concentrate our resources where they can do the most good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/ she? ) 09:24, 5 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.