Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctic Blast

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Blast[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Film does not appear to meet either the general notability guidelines or the film notability guidelines. Lack of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Reviews that exist for this film are only of the blog variety and do not contribute to notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several reliable sources exist: National Film and Sound Archive of Australia, Screen Australia, Wide Angle Tasmania. Also, the film's director Brian Trenchard-Smith appears quite impactful. Brandmeister^talk 15:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These do not have significant coverage. They're essentially database listings, which do not count toward notability. The director's notability does not mean all their films are notable, either. With barely any coverage, Arctic Blast could be covered in their article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NFILM#1, there are no independent reviews I could find. --hroest 22:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. A thorough search of the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspaper articles (wider and deeper than Google) revealed several articles reporting on the film's production, and these articles are probably sufficient to be IRS, so I have added them to the page, to give it the best chance of surviving. But I couldn't find and critical reviews, so it feels to me like it fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2021 (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.