Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munchie Strikes Back


 * 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 Article has been substantially improved; there are no more delete votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs)

Munchie Strikes Back

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

Unspeedying deletion. Was incorrectly tagged as A1. It's a terrible start for an article, but it does have some links that show that it has some marginal notability.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Sebastian 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Yup.... quite a poor beginning. However, A quick search has conviced me, that poor as it is at the moment, there is enough available so that the article can be markedly improved.  As I have some time today, I will do just that. I'll be back in a couple hours or so with a progress report. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has now been expanded and sourced. I found numerous reviews of the film and all reviewers agree that it is a piece of crap... but even crap can have the coverage needed to meet the GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's message. &mdash; Sebastian 03:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only hits, at Google News as shown here give 6 listings.  One a brief review, one a Press release that the DVD just came out, two just listings of the time it will be playing at the local theater and finally  two quick reviews in a foreign news paper.  This does not meet our notability standards unless they changed drastically recently.  Thanks . ShoesssS Talk 06:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Struck delete and moved to keep based on the work doe. Nice job by the way, and Keeping my word (yes Pun intended).  ShoesssS Talk 23:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects, Google News is not the only place one might find in-depth articles in genre-specific reliable sources that show a film meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. But thank you for showing the way to even more than are in the article. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. However you failed to point out that the guidelines also state "... The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. 1.The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. 2.The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.3.The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 4.The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.5.The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. 6..The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. "  If you can point me to any one of the 4 criteria, I am more than happy to reconsider, but I can not find them.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh... as I'm sure you've read, the WP:NF guideline begins wiith "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline." which itself states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I am hard pressed to understand how you see the provided in-depth reliable sources as somehow failing to meet the GNG. The quoted attributes are simply criteria for determining when or if one might expect that "the required sources are likely to exist". They are not themselves notability criteria. They advise that if the listed circumstances exist, one might likely expect to find RS... they do not instruct that lack of meeting the guiding attributes ipso-facto means that one will cannot and will not find reliable sources. I hate that Wikipedia is being more and more couched in confusing overlays of verbiage, when a simple sentence might say it all.  Consensus and multiple discussions has agreed that W:NF's general principles pretty much advise "if some of the following circumstances exist, you should be able to find sources".  Following the guideline of WP:NF, I found "the required sources"... meeting WP:NF, WP:GNG,  and thus WP:N. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing nominator This article has gone through significant improvements since it was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep In the alternative, redirect to Munchie, there are several notable sources in this article now. I respect the nominator, SebastianHelm, for changing his mind and deciding not to delete. That is very respectable. Ikip (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to improvements and as film does get over 40 Google Books hits, i.e. is verifiable through reliable sources. Moreover subject is indeed covered in at least one published encyclopedia and per our First pillar, we are in part a collection of what appears in specialized encyclopedias.  So, good work Michael (I have added one source to help out that reception section some more) and kudos to the nominator for being open-minded enough to switch stances upon evaluation of the improvements.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:59, 7 September 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.
 * 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.