Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evixion

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evixion[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE, in my opinion ModelUN (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your opinion of the sources cited in the article? It helps if you refute the claim of notability rather than simply assert an opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the sources support notability, especially the IMDB entry. That being said, I haven't read the second source because it is in French. ModelUN (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find more than enough references to meet WP:GNG, some of which I have now added. I have also corrected the release year to what is noted in the refs, which greatly increased the number of relevant results on Google. There seems to be more mentions of the film in french sources as well, maybe someone who speaks french could use them to add to the article and further support notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as decent enough stub article. Notable to Canada is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. The nom's inability to read French language sources is his personal problem, and not one related to notability. Sarahj2107 is to be applauded. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep article includes significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cavarrone 03:48, 31 July 2013 (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.