Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial (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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial (film)[edit]

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

~~A short film on YouTube, winning a very minor award.~~ DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Withdrawing the request, on the basis of MQS' comment. This is certainly a field where I accept him as expert. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've cleaned the article and removed one source: the YouTube video, which was removed due to copyright reasons. This isn't an argument for or against deletion, just letting incoming editors know that I've edited it from its original version. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep While it's true that the award this film won isn't that well-known or prestigious, it nevertheless resulted in a decent amount of coverage in Indian newspapers [1] [2] [3] as well as some coverage completely unrelated to the award: [4] Jinkinson talk to me 01:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep has just enough coverage and commentary to meet WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] A film does not have to Star Wars to be notable. Project will benefit from it remaining and being improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks good to me! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:03, 5 March 2014 (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.