Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not Another B Movie


 * 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The result was Keep: withdrawn by nominator (non-admin). JFHJr (㊟) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Another B Movie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This film does not pass WP:GNG (lacks multiple reliable sources giving sunbstantial coverage) as well as WP:NFILM (failing all alternative indications of notability there). Currently, sources that have published "reviews" are not reliable or well-known at all. This article is a WP:COI creation by Z.D. Smith, who has edited extensively and admittedly simply to promote himself and his films. JFHJr (㊟) 17:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per topic meeting the requisites at WP:NF by yes... having multiple reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage. My own BEFORE found such as DVD Talk, DVD Verdict, Courier News, and JoBlo... emmienently suitable as sources for independent spoof films even if the nominator found them in his own BEFORE and feels them "not reliable or well-known at all". Further, and in appreciateing the nominator bringing us concerns toward the author's COI, it must be noted that the author's last edit to this article was six months ago on December 29, 2011. He's stayed away from it since then. And while sure, the thing had sat unimproved since then, when an author is made aware of issues and refrains from editing an article, the best way to address issues is through a watch eye and regular editing such as THIS. More to do, certainly... and while this is not the "most" notable earth-shaking film ever, it has just enough coverage as a topic to be notable enough for us. In remembering WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP, it is rarely required to delete an article on a notable topic if issues are otherwise addressable through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Schmidt. I can see the argument that reviews from Rock! Shock! Pop! and Upchuck Undergrind might not be valid since they seem to be non-notable review blogs, but the other review and news sites listed are considered to be very reliable sources for movie reviews and information. Every article could always use more sources, but this one has enough to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Has sufficient coverage to meet film notability requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to meet criteria for Wiki inclusion. Simply needs more sourcing. The film itself seems notable enough. ExRat (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2012 (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.