Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siam Sunset


 * 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The result was   withdrawn --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Siam Sunset

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N Prod removed by creator with statement that "it is notable" without providing any actual proof. Article is a one line stub that appears to have been created purely to justify the creator's creation of a template of the director. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep You did no research to prove that it is not notable--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide proof that Collectonian did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Alan  -  talk  21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Keep Admittedly Bad Article but there are CLEARLY enough reliable sources to warrant an article even if, in its current state the article is only one sentance long. Maybe you should try to google the movie name before you bring up WP:N? When you nominate an article for deletion based on Notability you don't judge notability based on the state of the article but on the available material covering the subject of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And the reliable sources are? Google a film name does not establish notability. Please point to these reliable sources before claiming an article is notable (particularly when you are making the same statement in multiple AfDs). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The burdon of proof is on the NOMINATOR (you) to back up your claims that WP:N isn't met first and foremost bad faith deletes are clear examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I'm pretty damn confident that the results of these AfDs you created will help you better understand how this all works. Nefariousski (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Another reason it should be kept: It was nominated for 8 awards and won 6 of them:. --TheMovieBuff (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2010 (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.