Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stand Up


 * 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. NAC.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Stand Up

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of coverage that would warrant meeting WP:GNG. IMDb has only two reviews, by the same author, on what appear to be non-RS websites  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seriously? The first page of my Google search on the title + director gives reviews from The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter, and Village Voice. --Michig (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)




 * STRONG KEEP per WP:NRVE. Looking beyond the unreliable IMDB, it was easy to discover that numerous independent sources have offered commentary and analysis of the film. WP:GNG and WP:NF are soundly met. That the article has not been unimproved is a reason to do it, but not a valid reason to delete a notable topic. And by the by... it was not the least bit difficult to add citations.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: this improvable little stub is 445 characters (73 words) "readable prose size"... there is sweet DYK waiting here for whomever wishes to expand this.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... being first with the time and inclination, I suppose that "whomever" would be me.  Even though AFD is not meant to force improvements, The article has now been expanded and sourced to serve our readers. Research and improvement were not at all difficult. Now at 4703 characters (764 words) we have a 10x expansion. I have prepped my DYK and have asked the nominator to consider a withdrawal.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2013 (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.