Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of the Rain


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Out of the Rain

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Radio Times. Needs one more review or significant reliable source to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Also delete per the reasons given above. I could not find any significant coverage for this film.  Mike   Allen  03:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with numerous reliable sources establishing notability. Perhaps next time try WP:BEFORE. Dinglepincter (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where are these sources?  Mike  Allen  04:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep: I have striked my "Delete" since reliable sources have been provided to satisfy WP:GNG  Mike  Allen 
 * Delete - Single sourced article and clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV as cited by other editors. @Dinglepincter could you share the WP:RS and WP: INDEPENDENT to back up your claim Pranesh Ravikumar (talk)Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are reviews in TV Guide and Variety.Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this nomination. The Radio Times and TV Guide reviews are enough to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep An editor has found a few reviews, but the article needs to be developed. Because editors have specified delete, I think the nominator's withdrawal is not enough to create a WP:SKCRIT. Lightburst (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The Radio Times is not a "full-length review" and it is not established that the TV Guide reviewer is a "nationally known critic". Therefore it it not established that WP:NFO, let alone WP:GNG, is met. Please ping me if additional sources are found. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I just added this four paragraph review from a 1991 Variety (magazine): With this review, I think the article passes NFO and GNG. What do you think? --Wil540 art (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Wil540 art. Thank you for the ping. I agree that this review counts towards WP:NFO, however at least two such reviews are needed. Are you aware of any others? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Variety and TV Guide (both National publications) have reviews. Donald D23   talk to me  22:26, 1 January 2023 (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.