Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Break Shark Attack


 * 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   speedy keep. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 23:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Spring Break Shark Attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references, no sign of nobility, was listed for PROD (and deleted) before Fortdj33 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - unremarkable TV movie with promotional text and no evidence of notability.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I bow to 's sourcing and expertise in this area. Solid evidence of notability has been established.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just removed the summary as copyright infringement from here. Previous versions of the article were copyvio from another site. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Seacrhable multiple releases, in multiple languages, under multiple titles:
 * Australia:
 * Brazil:
 * Germany:
 * Spain:
 * Finland (DVD):
 * France:
 * France:
 * Greece (transliterated ISO-LATIN-1 title):
 * Hungary:
 * Netherlands:
 * Poland (DVD):
 * Poland:


 * Keep per meeting WP:NF through multiple sources being available and thus it having the WP:POTENTIAL for improvement to serve the project and its readers. Sorry ' & ', I always like to look first  before opining. And I would have properly declined a prod myself and simply tagged it for improvement after finding lengthy reviews at DVD Talk, Beyond Hollywood, Dread Central, Blog Critics, DVD Verdict, Pop Matters, Qwipster, Reel Film, and The Aisle Seat in English just to start, and even more non-English sources. I will be working on fixing it up some now per what I easily found and per WP:NRVE. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry; I am happy to work with anyone who is legitimately interested in improving articles. I did see some of these reviews before I made my initial assessment, but they mostly looked like self published websites.  The best source I found was one you didn't mention - a review republished on the New York Times website.  That one struck me as potentially reliable, but the other reviews didn't look especially reliable.  However, I am ready to be convinced.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay... well, DVD Talk, Dread Central, Blog Critics, DVD Verdict, and Pop Matters have been long found acceptable for sourcing films. With just those six, we have a meeting of WP:NF. See WP:NRVE. The one you found in New York Times while reliable enough, is a a reprint of the "overview" offered by Jason Buchanan in AllMovieGuide, but AMG does offer a slightly longer review by Jeremy Wheeler.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * and I did find a review in the Washington Post and a mention in USA Today.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, I didn't look very hard for any sources to establish notability, it appeared that this was just another poorly created article, which had sat around without references long enough to be deleted. Now that MichaelQSchmidt has improved the article, I withdraw my nomination to delete it. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nomination and all delete votes have been withdrawn, but I'll leave it to an uninvolved editor to close this. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like your only involvement was a comment above and fixing the copyright violation - I don't see any objection to your closing this.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly plenty of source coverage of this topic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2015 (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.