Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheels of Fortune (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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels of Fortune (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)

Non-notable film per ~~WP:NFF~~WP:NF, only sources are reproductions of the primary source press release and non-professional reviews, does not have significant coverage to meet ~~WP:NFF~~WP:NF or WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 23:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NFF applies to future films, this one has already been released. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I've amended my nomination to better reflect guidelines. BOVINEBOY2008 12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At the moment, the article has enough sources to pass notability. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has sufficient sources. --Jorm (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Four out of the six refs are press releases on Twitter and Insta (primary sources). Also, WP:NFILM clearly requires two reviews from reputed sources to establish notability, which are also currently missing. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 19:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional sources for research include Chico Enterprise-Record, Metro UK, Sonoma Index-Tribune, Netflix Life, Box Office Pro. Right cite (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the listed sources is in-depth coverage about the film. The first three are one sentence mentions, the one from Sonoma Index-Tribune is a casting call and Netflix life isn't RS. Again not a single review present, two of which are essential to establish notability for films. TheRedDomitor (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote by blocked suck. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not essential if the film passes WP:GNG with other coverage such as scholarly papers, detailed book coverage and so on, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason not to keep. I agree that there is little that's in depth about the movie out there, but plenty of small mentions, such as when Red Sea Media bought the right at Cannes, or that Lucas Oil financed the movie. For me this is a case of why not keep? The article is informative, and will satisfy a quick read to inform what the movie is about.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2020 (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.