Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Exorcism of Anna Ecklund


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The Exorcism of Anna Ecklund

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

My article. But now there are doubts about the significance WP:NFILM. --Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment An author can request deletion of their own article with WP:G7 provided they're the only substantial contributor to the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment My reading is that the author is wondering whether it ought to be deleted rather than proposing it should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Andrew Jones (filmmaker), the only reliable review I could find was the Scream review already cited in the article. I also found this article in Dread Central reacting to the trailer, but that article only really talks about the film for two sentences, the rest is a plot synopsis and a callback to an earlier article by that website. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I found some coverage for the film and expanded the article - it's not the heaviest and I'm not really certain about the Cryptic Rock source, but I think that overall there's enough to squeak by notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some sources and improvements were added by ReaderofthePack. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, Of the added sources, ScreenRant, while reliable, is mostly a plot synopsis with only a sentence of actual coverage, while Cryptic Rock has no indication that it has an editorial team, so it's probably not a reliable source. Notability probably rests on the WalesOnline source, which is probably reliable, but the article is mostly about Tiffany Ceri, not the film itself. It might provide SIGCOV, but it's very marginal at best. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It does focus on her, but it's predominantly focusing on her in relation to the film and how she approached the character. The content about her outside of the film makes up about a third of the article. There's also the reviews from Scream, a fairly widely internationally distributed magazine, and HorrorNews.net, which is seen as a RS for horror topics. As said above, it's not the firmest keep but there is just barely enough here. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:19, 17 January 2022 (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.