Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Yakuza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Courcelles 21:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
American Yakuza[edit]
- American Yakuza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film; only reference is an IMDb listing. Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Anton Bitel reviewed it here, a DVD Active review, and a TV Guide review. Book coverage, book coverage, and more book coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:NF per sources found and offered by Joe Chill. See WP:NRVE. While certainly a reason to tag for concerns, available sources not being in an article does not equate to non-notability, nor require deletion. To quote: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." As the sources are available and have been offered, notability has been established. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I see your point, other Mike, but the article had been up for two years without any sources being added, which led me to presume they did not exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:NOEFFORT aside, we know now that they do exist and the article can be improved accordingly. Seems a decent reason to tag for cleanup rather than to delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True that, my brother, and an excellent reminder to me (and to us all). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:NOEFFORT aside, we know now that they do exist and the article can be improved accordingly. Seems a decent reason to tag for cleanup rather than to delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I see your point, other Mike, but the article had been up for two years without any sources being added, which led me to presume they did not exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Clearly notable as per WP:NF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2011 (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.