Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheels (2017 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.  So Why  07:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Wheels (2017 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Searches did not turn up anything to show this film meets WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NFILM. The article about the film's director was deleted as a result of this discussion: Articles for deletion/Donavon Warren.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Also is for sale on Amazon, Itunes, Playstation, X-Box and for sale on online DVD/BLU-RAY - All major outlets) -- Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)  — Film Fanatical10069 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - This page should not be deleted because... (meets either the general notability guidelines, movie was in Theaters,


 * Delete The above sources do not establish notability; they offer only very brief plot summaries and information about where it's on, with no critical comment or reporting. It does not meet WP:NFILM: no reviews by major critics (Rotten Tomatoes lists nothing and nobody has produced any); awards are minor; no other claim to historical importance or wide media coverage. Just being in a couple of theaters isn't grounds for notability. I'm surprised that a film apparently released in Los Angeles wasn't reviewed in any of the industry publications, but it wasn't. (NB: According to IMDb the film was made and premiered in 2014, so the date should be changed if the article is kept.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  22:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources.  Unfortunately, merely being released is not good enough for an article on Wikipedia.  It needs to be reviewed by professional critics.  Normally, for a film like this, you'd find reviews at IndieWire and Screen Anarchy, but there doesn't seem to be anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I found some articles. --Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2017
 * I admire your efforts... and these are better than earlier... but there's only one "keep" per customer.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Article's editor improved article and provided new references. This movie has been shown in theaters and article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. Also, this movie is represented on the most popular movie portal on Runet. I think that it is argue to stay it and give editor an opportunity to adapt it to wiki requirements.Кость Лінивець (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD 20  14  02:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Broadwayworld.com and Worcesterherald.com are reliable sources for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep.  WP:NFILM is met per available sources..  Schmidt,  Michael Q. —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Squeaks by WP:NFP per significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources (multiple meaning two in this case):, . North America1000 01:25, 5 July 2017 (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.