Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After (2012 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After (2012 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A film festival film with no significant coverage Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage exists, e.g. [1], [2], and others. --Michig (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither article is really about the film. They're about the production company and only touch on the film in relation to that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.. As long as the film is spoken of directly and in enough detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content, even if not the main topic of the sources used, then we're just fine allowing the film article to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AFTER performed by User:Michig finding significant coverage, and per WP:NRVE. Article and project will benefit from expansion and use of available sources. It does not serve the project to delete even stubs on notable topics simply because their articles require work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the independent RS'es Michig has found. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Notability for films has been established... Albeit only one source cited. This has potential for expansion. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.