Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Anonymous Rudy S.

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 redirect to B._P._Paquette#Filmmaking. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Anonymous Rudy S.

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

Unreleased independent film of questionable notability. No IMDB page, Google search shows only 91 unique results - mostly primary sources and social media. Fails WP:NFF. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schmidt, you're right. I agree a redirect is a better option. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the film is sourcable as being complete and having screened,[1] WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable. And to the nominator, the Find sources above show 886 unique results, rather than 91, but google hits are always problematic when being used in deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll check the link I provided above, the number of unique results stands at 89 now. However, following your version of the link, I only get 81 unique results. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth debating. See WP:GHITS. At best it currently merits only its sourced mention in the director's article. That's why a redirect of a reasonable search term will suffice for now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for a short while to the filmmaker's article at B. P. Paquette#Filmmaking. Makes no nevermind that it does not "yet" have an IMDB page, as the film is competed and has screened,[2] and the film's production IS getting some minor coverage and is thus verifiable.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The redirect can be reverted and the film article expanded and further sourced upon wider festival screening and greater coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 1 September 2011 (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.