Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninth Street


 * 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. per consensus and withdrawal of nomination by nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Ninth Street

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Variety. It needs more coverage—at least one more suitable and reliable review—in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete one write up on a film is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's taking some time, but I'm finding some coverage here and there for the movie. It looks like for the longest time this was kind of the film the director was known for, now it's probably BlacKkKlansman. In any case, I'll add more as I find it - this is one I'm really having to do some spelunking for since a lot of the coverage is buried in paywalled databases. What I'm finding does point towards there being more, which has been the case so far. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This one's a bit marginal, but on balance I think Dennis Harvey's review in Variety, Robert W. Butler's articles in The Kansas City Star, and Thomas Fox Averill's article here are enough to satisfy the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this nomination per consensus and per User:ReaderofthePack’s article improvements. The Film Creator (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Might be piling on at this point, but current references seven and nine are very good and should meet both WP:GNG and WP:NFO. –2pou (talk) 18:50, 20 May 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.