Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stork (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The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator below. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Stork (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Unless I am missing something, of the two refs provided, the IMDB link doesn't even mention this film, and the ISBN # of the book comes up empty. The Eskimo (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The IMDB source works for me and Australian Film Institute awards must make it notable, and can be better-sourced. "Best Feature", for example, is sourced on the AFI website. Rodhull  andemu  23:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Ideally, IMDB shouldn't be used as a source, but it is easily replaceable with this source for the award. This article asserts the film was "the first commercial success of the Australian film revival". Other sources include (a brief article from a branch of the Australian government on the significance to that country's heritage!). Redfarmer (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the book definitely exists. It's out of print, but found a used copy on Amazon. Redfarmer (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. What does "ISBN # of the book comes up empty" mean? Does the nom. know how this works? And how "the IMDB link doesn't even mention this film" if it is linked straight to the film's IMDB page. The article is sourced to show that the subject is notable and as such should be kept. feydey (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: As nom I withdraw the nomination for deletion.  The added sources are good, as are the points made above.  Still I  opposed to IMDB being the only source in film articles, but the newly added refs address that concern.  As for the ISBN # not working, that appears to have been either my work computer not loading the page, or the site being temporarily down, b/c I can now see it fine from my home PC.  If someone else would like to close this as keep you would have my support. The Eskimo (talk) 03:32, 17 November 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.