Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RK/RKay


 * 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. Of course, it would be appreciated if sources mentioned in the deletion discussion could be added to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

RK/RKay

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

disputed draftification. Fails WP:NFILM 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: As the movie is already premiered (or was it released?) in the US and I was able to find 4 reviews from critics from Variety, AIPT, RogerEbert and IWM Buzz - does it satisfy the WP:NFO #1 for the "widely distributed" part? From one website, I see that it was premiered in multiple locations across the US — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaxServer If you consider that it does then you should offer that opinion, ideally also adding relevant references to the article. You should base your judgement on the reliability of the sources and the breadth of independent coverage, assuming it to be independent. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear other opinions before solidifying mine about that widely distributed part (this is imho my first interaction with a film [in AfD] that had/will have a release/premier so far apart) and see how the discussion progresses. I'll add the references in a day or two — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:NFILM per full-length reviews from Variety and RogerEbert.com poited above, in adiditon to Film Threat, and Easy Reader . -- Ab207 (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The number of published reviews linked here and on the Rotten Tomatoes page in External Links are enough sources that WP:NEXIST to meet WP:NFILM. Improving the article with said reviews can be done outside AfD.  I don't think that NFO#1 necessarily has to be true one way or another to satisfy the guideline; it was meant to say that if widely distributed, you are likely to be able to make a notability case, but the amount of coverage already supersedes that... tip, if you will. -2pou (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I usually support deletion, but this has 12 reviews on RT, with 2 top critics and 10 other ones, most are reliable probably. This meets the general GNG criteria and WP:NFILM easily and shouldn't be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 3 July 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.