Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back by Midnight

: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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_preload&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Back by Midnight}}&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back by Midnight}}&editintro=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:Back by Midnight}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request request the article's undeletion]. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

=[[:Back by Midnight]]=

:{{la|Back by Midnight}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Back by Midnight}})

Non-notable film, despite the caliber of the cast, this film did not receive the significant coverage needed to qualify for a stand-alone article per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete the sourcing is way below the level needed to show that a film is notable. Just because a film was released commercially does not mean it is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2021 (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.