Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under Age (1964 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 keep. Star  Mississippi  03:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Under Age (1964 film)

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

Obscure film by self-described "schlockmeister". No notable cast members or reviews to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unless somebody can find evidence of previous notability (i.e. something like a newspaper article from 1964 mentioning it). As of now, pretty much everything that turns up on a Google search is an IMDB-type website. Highway 89 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. If deleted, then Under Age should go as well an unnecessary film set index, and Under Age (1941 film) should be moved there. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is a review by a Rotten Tomatoes Critic . But also, most of the rationale for deletion is wrong. No where in policy does it say "obscure" films can't have a page, especially if there is coverage...which this has. Also, "no notable cast members" is irrelevant. Just because a film doesn't have "known actors" does not mean the film cannot have a page...if there is coverage. Donald D23   talk to me  00:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - A single review usually is not enough to pass WP:NFILM (and I would hesitate to describe the one linked above as a "full length review"). That said, while the full section is not available in the preview view, this book has a good paragraph writeup on it. At the very least, I feel like it should get a light merge into Larry Buchanan's article and be given a mention in his career. Rorshacma (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I did a little work on it, i think its notable enough to be kept.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY.    ArcAngel    (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2023 (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.