Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Men (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. T. Canens (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Men (film)[edit]

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

Delete. Plot-only summary of a film, with no indication of real-world context and no reliable sourcing to support it. I can't find any stronger sourcing to repair it with on Google or ProQuest, either: even its profile on Rotten Tomatoes, often the first place to check for the critical reviews that can salvage an unsourced article about a film, lists zero reviews at all, and all I can find on ProQuest is two one-line acknowledgements of its existence in "what's playing at the film festival today" calendar listings. As always, every film that exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article that's sourced only to its IMDb profile -- reliable source coverage in media, supporting a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NFILM, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 03:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 03:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a Variety review. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. DVD Talk isn't the greatest source in the world, but I did find this review. There's also a trivial mention here about the DVD release date. It's hard to find reviews for this film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources to establish an article. I also found a source from a Buffalo LGBT newspaper, "Outcome": http://www.outcomebuffalo.com/film-2006-3-22-003099.htm. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weak keep, but the review in Variety clinches it for me. I also found short reviews in the Halifax Daily News and Video Business using proquest/lexis-nexis. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per meeting WP:NF. Really sad that the artcle is in poor shape but under WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST that would call for improvement for a sourcable topic, not deletion. Sorry nominator, but perhaps you might reconsider your stance? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:48, 18 January 2017 (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.