Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamscape (2007 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. The delete arguments were stronger, but the article did improve during the AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamscape (2007 film)[edit]

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

Independent film of questionable notability - possibly self-promotional, as article creator (and main contributor) appears to be the film's director. While the article does list two reviews (both from the same source), I can find no significant coverage from independent sources, nor can I find sources that corroborate the claims of an award or TV screenings. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, fails WP:FILM, no reliable sources to establish notability. --Slon02 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to the two obscure reviews listed in the article, there is this coverage in a local paper. However, this is not enough for me to say this meets notability. - Whpq (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue improvements. So far (and improvements are continuing), there are 4 independent secondary reviews... 2 of original release in 2007 and 2 of the extended cut as released in 2009. While certainly what was nominated [1] was a poorly written article, what is being developed through regular editing [2] is something far more encyclopedic and of benefit to our readers. As guideline encourages that sources need to be considered in context to what is being sourced, genre reviews are acceptable and are what would be expected. Their being "obscure" to some, is not a valid reason to dismiss them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the sources adduced by MQS above and added to the article are sufficient to support notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search for the guy's name and the name of the film, and I found coverage. [3] Other sources have already been added to the article. Dream Focus 04:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to be coming along nicely and there are adequate sources to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per MichaelQSchmidt.Hillcountries (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has clearly gone through a thorough revamp, which includes a decent well sourced review section, confirming the notability. Worm^TT 09:55, 10 February 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.