Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blue Knight (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 Snow Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  20:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Blue Knight (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Three years and still no references Holypod (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are sources available:  from the Toledo Blade,  from the Montreal Gazette,  from the The Register-Guard,  from the Pittsburgh Press, and  from Time Out London.  Also, this article from Variety says Holden won an Emmy for his performance.  There are production details covered in this biography of Holden published by McFarland & Company.  So, I'd say that it's a pass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I expanded the article and added these sources. I think it makes a much better claim for notability now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An easy keep, even before NinjaRobotPirate's fine improvements, given that the article already listed the easily-verified Emmys. WP:BEFORE is instructive here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Being unref'd is not a valid reason for deletion (see WP:BEFORE). Expansion and sourcing has now been done to boot.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep of a very poor (sorry) nomination of a multiple award-winning quite notable film of a whole slew of notable actors. Not being improved is not a proper deletion rational, specially when even the smallest amount of due diligence would have showed the nom his error in judgement.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I frown on "delete this because it existed before the Internet and I'm too lazy to pursue WP:SOFIXIT" noms, and this is one of them. Plenty of sources now.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:39, 14 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.