Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalled

: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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

=[[:Stalled]]=

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Stalled}})

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 13:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 13:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep has been fully reviewed in many reliable sources as per [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2140429/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ql_op_5 this link page] and while many of those links are unreliable the following ones are considered WP:FilmProject reliable sources: Aint it Cool News, Bloody Disgusting, Screen Daily, Screen Anarchy, Starburst and Exclaim and have full reviews so it passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete No credible 3rd party sources about this movie apart from blog style reviewers, Website doesn’t work, no evidence of screening anywhere bar a film festival, doesn’t meet notability guidelines Daps166 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

:: only one vote is allowed and there are six reliable sources full reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The reviews cited above are not blogs but established independent reliable sources as confirmed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. Reviews in high quality sources such as Screen International and printed film magazines such as Starburst are strong signs of notabity that together with the other rs reviews mean WP:GNG is passed, irrespective of theatrical release which in the era of netflix will become less common. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - the list of reviews is more than sufficient. Certainly with 71 checking through all of them for the reliable ones is a little brutal, but having a look at the ones pointed out is worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of reviews, some at least are RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources [http://www.melies.org/the-festivals/lund-international-fantastic-film-festival like this LIFFF award] and Screen daily review means a lot to moview articles and are sufficient to pass GNG. Also there are more sources apart from them. –Ammarpad (talk)

{{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.