Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vessel (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. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Vessel (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is a stub, provides very little information to establish Notability. Sources are just the official website and the IMDB entry. RegistryKey (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable film. Did you try researching the topic? WP:N states, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Per WP:BEFORE, basic due diligence must be exercised to determine if there is a lack of reliable sources about this film. I searched for vessel documentary review and found the following reviews right away: Indiewire, Variety, and Austin Chronicle, which is more than enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Type:
 * Filmmaker:
 * Topic:


 * Strongest keep per 8 more reviews linked here and WP:NRVE even for an unimproved article. Sorry, but you really dropped the ball on this one per deletion policy. A withdrawal would be both courteous and appreciated.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anything reviewed by Variety is almost certainly notable, as that is indicative of higher profile and mainstream films.  It's a good place to start any research on films.  Also, try checking the IMDb for external reviews.  It's not a total loss, however, as the article has been improved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCLEANUP... but yup. So many many sources missed by the, it was ridiculously easy to do. He's been actively editing, so does anyone care to suppose why he has not returned to this discussion to address a possible speedy keep per his failure to properly follow WP:Deletion policy for an obviously notable topic?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Must have been the way I was researching, apologies all, didn't mean to stir up the hornet's nest. I've been busy elsewhere plus with work, so haven't had time to get back to this. So, having read the replies here, I hereby request speedy keep under reason #1. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 00:24, 4 October 2014 (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.