Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminal Bliss


 * 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. The article's "Reception" section provides three reviews from reliable sources which should be sufficient. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister   talk  21:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Terminal Bliss

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable flop film. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This movie is notbale as it has reviews from mainstream sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: As I'd mentioned at the deletion discussion for Kiss & Tell, Orange Mike has rightly noted Jordan Alan has created spam articles and has generally been using Wikipedia for his own promotional ends. I've marked a couple of his in-development projects for deletion myself. This particular film, though, does seem to have been released, was reviewed by mainstream sources and does star a recognized, notable actor. I don't think it being a flop really enters into it &mdash; lots of movies flop. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per Tenebrae: yes, the director himself has edited an article about one of his films, but the film is indeed notable, and he basically just added the plot and a few technical data to the infobox. The film is indeed notable, and I don't understand why nominating for deletion an article that, at the time of the nomination, already listed four reliable sources in support of its notability (and more are available and easily foundable). Cavarrone (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. As already mentioned, a film being a flop doesn't make it not notable, nor does someone with a COI editing an article.--Michig (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep per Tenebrae. Garion96 (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per this one meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. Problems with actions of individual editors or groups are dealt with means other than deleting otherwise notable content. What is discernible as notable is kept and concerns with content or sourcing is addressed through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:40, 4 November 2012 (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.