Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kickboxer 2

:{{la|Kickboxer 2}} ([{{fullurl:Kickboxer 2|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kickboxer 2}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable film. Valrith (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The film was released to theaters and video and has been reviewed by multiple sources. WP:N/FILMS is easily met. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Per Mrschimpf. Also as the sequel to a major motion picture. I'm not sure why the nom felt this failed WP:N. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 09:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to a Kickboxer (film) article under a "Sequels" header. I don't know how notable this movie actually is. Why does it fail WP:NOTE you ask? Well, because NOTE requires "significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject" - It has 2 reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes and if you actually view them you'll see that the first is just an announcement for what the film is (not a review) and the second does not appear to actually be accessable. Thus, the lack of third-party sourcing, or any real world coverage from any type of reliable source is why this film (and I'm sure the other two that have articles) fails the WP:GNG. It needs mentioning somewhere, just not in its own article. Create a section in the original film's article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - as Michael has found some reviews to satisfy WP:NOTE. Unless the same can be done for those direct-to-video sequels that follow this one, then I still say someone should put a merge proposal and place them at either Kickboxer or Kickboxer 2.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• This movie is notable. Why does it meet WP:NOTE you ask? Well, because NOTE requires "significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject". Schuym1 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• good points Bignole. Ikip (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• SPEEDY Keep as notability is not temporary. One can easily understand that as the second in a successful series of films, that it would have been covered at the time of its release 18 years ago, and there were multiple comparisons made to its predecessor. That fact that these pre-internet/pre-wikipedia reviews or commentaries are now difficult to find, does not mean that they did not then exist. However, I did find a few lengthy reviews... [http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,307597,00.html Entertainment Weekly], [http://movies.tvguide.com/kickboxer-2-road/review/128650 TV GUIDE], [http://www.badmovieknights.com/2007/01/post.html Bad Movie Knights], [http://movies.tvguide.com/kickboxer-2-road/review/128650 Kung Fu Cinema], and others at [http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ReviewID=1848][http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1034957/content_131536817796]... With respects to the nom. its a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• There is also [http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/reviews.cfm/id/846/page/kickboxer____the_road_back.html this] and [http://www.cityonfire.com/hkrelated/kickboxerii.html this]. Schuym1 (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Great find! Good work. I'll add then to the NOW improved article. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep As easily as Michael found reviews, there is no point to redirect the other articles as review are probably just as readily available for them too. Ikip (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2009 (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.