Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Exorcist in the 21st Century
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 userfy to User:Anupam/The Exorcist in the 21st Century. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Exorcist in the 21st Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM bobrayner (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy back to its author as an in-work draft. Documentaries have a more difficult time than do feature films in establishing notability. Due to its topic, and with the release of its trailer, this one is just now beginning to receive some notice,[1][2][3][4] and may well have enough coverage later to merit a separate article. But for now, it fails WP:NFF and is simply too soon. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too soon per NFF. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. Agree that it's too soon and it hasn't attained the necessary notability yet, but it seems likely that it will do, so I think it's worth keeping as a user draft. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This probably meets notability, but it's too early. So userfy can be done, but there isn't much content, so delete. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Ahh... but a userfication could encourage the author to expand it... away from mainspace. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ok with userfication, but the author of this article is on the verge on ban at ANI. -Abhishikt (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A pity. He's been around long enough to know better.[5] I try to look beyond the author and instead look to the film topic. As userfication may be problematic, how about an incubation for collaborative editing instead? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he escaped the ban with very stern warnings and 1RR.
- so userfy.
- A pity. He's been around long enough to know better.[5] I try to look beyond the author and instead look to the film topic. As userfication may be problematic, how about an incubation for collaborative editing instead? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ok with userfication, but the author of this article is on the verge on ban at ANI. -Abhishikt (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh... but a userfication could encourage the author to expand it... away from mainspace. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:22, 9 May 2012 (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.