Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress of the Apes

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress of the Apes

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

This article consists of a single sentence with a link to a New York Times page as a source that has nothing in it about the film. Likely not notable. Wlmg (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like Emanuel Levy reviewed the film at some point in time per Rotten Tomatoes, although the review itself isn't linked to on the site. TV Guide also rated it as well. I'll see what else I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I found this [1] not a super fantastic RS, but it is only a cheese ball movie in the final analysis.--Wlmg (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By all accounts this film is terrible. But it is a film from Larry Buchanan, a director famous in certain circles because of his films. He's had books written about him. I feel that films from Buchanan are notable in their own way and deserving of an entry. I will try to find some extra sourcesDutchy85 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found this New York Times blurb and video [2] The NYT is the "gold standard" of notability , right?--Wlmg (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Its still not a great article, but the sources that have been introduced since the AFD started seem to be enough to pass at least the bare minimum of the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Dutchy85: whether the film is terrible or not is not a reason to keep an article on Wikipedia. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! just wanted to acknowledge - I think we should keep it. It's larry Buchanan! :) Dutchy85 (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dutchy85: Just because it is a film made by a notable director doesn't mean the article should stay. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I think we should add some stuff to it but only if we can. One source about it is not enough. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep, mainly per the extensive 8-page analysis in the Routledge book. The offline Emanuel Levy's review and the TV Guide review also help in terms of notability. Article was pretty horrible, now is decent. Cavarrone 06:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reviews such as TvGuide and book source borderline passes GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2016 (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.