Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Plains Invaders

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. The ~~nominator~~ only editor arguing for deletion has withdrawn but this nomination has been open long enough and has enough participation for a keep close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Plains Invaders[edit]

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

I declined this speedy as it did not fit CSD criteria. No !vote from me. causa sui (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets the notability guidelines. Through a search engine test, I found the following. Reviews from Dread Central, DVD Talk, and FEARnet (The Good Article Grizzly Rage uses these references). There's also coverage from SCI FI Wire (reprint) and SCI FI Wire again. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or Merge to Maneater (series) The film does not appear to be notable on its own. The article lacks information. If it is rewritten to show that it is notable and includes more information, than I'll close this discussion (being that I was the one who originally tagged the page for CSD, I can just withdraw the nomination as the actual nominator only nominated as a favor for me). JDDJS (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn It's clear that I lost, so there's no point in continuing this. JDDJS (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the references I mentioned above, do you consider the topic (not the Wikipedia article) notable? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what you said, I think the topic might be notable. I don't think there's anything wrong with redirecting to Maneater (series) until it is rewritten to prove that it is notable. JDDJS (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few reviews to the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job Erik.

And to JDDJS: Notable topics that can be improved through regular editing, are not suitable deletion targets simply because the work is pending. I wish to politely remind of WP:Deletion policy and its stating "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Merging is for short pages that are unlikely to be expanded, and not for those improvable pages that have potential and simply await "regular editing". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--you'd lose some of the material by merging to Maneater (series). Could be expanded, but what's there now clearly satisfies notability. Meelar (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Erik's provided sources, critical commentary and review in sources independent of the subject, show the film as meeting WP:Notability (film) and meriting an independent article. We do not merge notable topics elsewhere simply because we can, else all the later Star Wars films would be merged into the article about the first. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 7 July 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.