Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand (2000 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. All the !votes are keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sand (2000 film)

[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)

Fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Marginally passes GNG and NFO. I found no hits in newspapers, PROQUEST, and EBSCOE. I did find two independent reviews in google books with snippet views. The film is also included in an offline film reference work Video Sourcebook with independent analysis by the author. See below.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Martin, ‎Marsha Porter (2004). ""Sand"". DVD & Video Guide 2005. Ballantine Books. p. 962. ISBN 9780345449955.
Jim Craddock (2004). "Sand". Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever 2005. Gale. p. 703.
Thomson Gale (2007). "Sand". Video Sourcebook: A Guide to Programs Currently Available on Video. Gale. p. 2533. ISBN 9781414400990.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second ref you have listed seems to be a for a 1997 movie called Sand Trap. Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BARE I know it is an essay... - We may have enough to write an encyclopedic article with inline refs. As it is the article needs a complete going through. Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a podcast, of which I'm not familiar with the creator, meanwhile TV Guide is pretty useless and so is the Dutch site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geschichte (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources listed above DonaldD23 talk to me 12:51, 15 October 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.