Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Tennis

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) 02:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Tennis[edit]

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

Make some consensus, fails WP:NFILM. 333 -blue 11:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no sources to establish notability. Present sources are either not about the film or not significant coverage (databases). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep I was able to find reliable sources speaking directly toward the short in a more-than-trivial manner, and was able to improve the unsourced stub which was first nominated. Addenedum: the full length review by The Philadelphia Inquirer and more-than-trivial information found elsewhere, made me decide this short meets WP:NF and pushed me into a keep. I had originally considered at minimum a partial merge and redirect to Dick Van Patton, but that much sourced info would overburden the target. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my !vote because you managed to produce some non-trivial content. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, why is this still open? Current article is notable beyond any possible doubt. Cavarrone 09:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a review from the Chicago Sun-Times, subject meets our notability guideline for films. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:24, 23 November 2015 (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.