Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slash-in-the-Box

: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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

=[[Slash-in-the-Box]]=

:{{la|Slash-in-the-Box}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slash-in-the-Box Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Slash-in-the-Box}})

Does not meet WP:NFP or other other evidence of notability for films, per several source searches. North America1000 09:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. I really wasn't expecting to find much of anything, as short films usually get the short end of the stick, pun intended. It looks like it gained some attention when it released and some additional attention once it got snapped up to be part of a horror anthology film in 2013. The coverage isn't the most overwhelmingly strong, but it did get just enough to where I'd say it could be kept. If we had an article for the anthology film I might have argued for a redirect, but we don't and there's just enough here to wobble by NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is enough information to remain. It's an interesting subject to many, and the writer/director has a strong history. It appears to meet the necessary guidelines. FairlySavvy 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairlySavvy (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - As {{u|Tokyogirl79}} mentioned, I was surprised to find enough coverage on this. I definitely think we should be keeping this. -- Dane2007 talk 19:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.