Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard III (2008 film)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard III (2008 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to have ever been released. No third party sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. It does seem to have shown at the Worldfest in Houston in April of 2007. I find some mentions that it won a couple awards there but not in reliable sources. I'm torn because IMO there are enough known actors to merit an article but the fact that the director and star - Scott M. Anderson - doesn't have an article is not in its favor. Whatever the final decision is will be fine with me. If the outcome is delete it will need to be removed from Template:Shakespeare tetralogy as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * in looking beyond the article:
 * premiere year:
 * filmmaker/star:
 * star:
 * star:
 * star:
 * screening:


 * Keep per meeting WP:NF through independent coverage. Pitiful that (the unreliable) IMDB is incomplete, but so what. Also pitiful that the article has not been properly sourced, but as sources exist, this is another "so what?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 02:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Oops. Sorry I failed to sign. Was not intentional.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep given the serious coverage of the film in 2 scholarly works identified above by MQS, as well as the indications that it won awards at that festival in 2007 (p.18) . --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the research done by MQS and Arxiloxos. "A" I am glad that you found some RSs for the awards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As the research by MQS and Arxiloxos confirms notability. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. Now what are you going to do, sit back and hope that they add themselves? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but that statement seems to indicate that you've never read WP:NRVE or are unaware of WP:NOTCLEANUP or WP:IMPATIENT... and I know that that is untrue. If an acceptable notability is shown, that does not also demand that addressing an article MUST be done now. But as notability is established, how about I promise to add sources in the near day or two if you do not or cannot do so yourself? Thanks and be well.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That was a bit flippant, I apologize. I just get frustrated since I see that pattern all the time: a microscopic article with no assertation of notability gets nominated, then gets snow-kept because someone found a bunch of useful sources. But nobody ever gets around to adding them,... and then years and years later, the article is still microscopic because everyone expects everyone else to add them, yet no one can be bothered. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I get to what I can, when I can, but WP:PATIENCE is a virtue.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as this meets WP:NF through independent coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the filming year:
 * the post-production year:
 * the premiere release year:


 * UPDATE: I just performed some work and, as the film's 2007 world premiere has been verified, the redirect from Richard III (2007 film) needs to be looked at after an anticipated keep. So  Might you agree that this somewhat better now than what you first nominated??   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:47, 3 May 2016 (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.