Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unidentified (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Film is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Dkchana (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets Notability with articles devoted to the movie in Variety, Las Cruces Sun-News, Macon Telegraph, Movieguide, and ChristianCinema.com --GRuban (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Variety and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reviews (now added in the reviews section) are sufficient. --Lexein (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as nominator appears to have forgotten WP:BEFORE, and a number of fine soures are available as were offered by User:GRuban and User:Lexein. Two cogent things to consider, 1) notability is not found IN an article, but in its sourcability, and 2) concerns with current state is a reason to fix the problem, not to seek deletion because of lack of effort by others.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No violations as I can see, well cited, it will require a slight rewrite, but contains nothing libelious. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per reliable sources that establish topic notability: Variety, Las Cruces Sun-News, Macon Telegraph and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, sourced, etc. Invmog (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As evidenced by the numerous, independent, reliable sources noted above providing significant coverage. GuterTag (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep Some links to reviews by reliable sources were in the article already at the time of the nomination. The previous AFD metioned the Variety review.    D r e a m Focus  11:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. May well require a chat/warning from an admin, but not necessarily a block. History2007 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2011 (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.