Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Exposure (movie)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Total Exposure (movie)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Even with very specific search parameters, "total exposure" has significantly more hits than it's capitalised counterpart. The only actual websites I could find regarding this film are from unreliable sources such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. This film existed, but does not seem to have become a notable film. While I appreciate the creator's enthusiasm for creating new articles on Wikipedia, I highly recommend they read through the notability guidelines before starting more articles. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    21:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: The nominated stub was easy to begin fixing.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * alts for Total Exposure:
 * year:
 * director:
 * star:
 * star:
 * star:
 * star:


 * Split and consider each film separately. I can't divine any reason for these films to be bundled--they have different directors, different casts, and different potential sources--and they should be considered separately. Since bundling like this also has the tendency to reduce the visibility of the AfDs for the additional films, I request the nominator to please revert the bundling and open a separate AfD for each film. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This has now been done. Please see AVtK and BG(m). The appropriate comments have been kept on their respective discussions. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems the only "reason" is that they are very poorly formatted by inexperienced contributor User:RavenGlamDVDCollector. I agree... spilt and deal with each unique topic separately.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's a substantive TV Guide review, a brief and yet incisive  ("Total idiocy involving unclad babes and hormonally imbalanced men in blackmail and murder.") review from VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever   , and (for whatever it's worth) a two-sentence mention in a 1991 column on cut-rate videos   It ain't No Country For Old Men, but it's a notable cast and I suspect that this may ultimately pass our usual standards for such films, but for the moment I will reserve my opinion to see if something more definitive turns up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per notability establish-able even with the lack of BEFORE. However, the article author really needs to get some training.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:25, 19 January 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.