Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivory Tower (1998 film)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2021 April 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Tower (1998 film)[edit]

[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)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found this on Variety. I'd like to believe that for a film in the internet-era of the late 90s, and starring Michael Ironside would have some coverage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline requires more than one source. You mentioned that it's an internet-era film and that you couldn't find anymore sigificant coverage which should be a good enough reason to vote delete. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only made a passing search, and found that in a few seconds. I've dropped a note at WT:FILM for more input. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: In addition to what's in the article through Lugnuts or otherwise, I found this from DVD Review (which appears to have editorial control and other RS hallmarks). I checked newspapers.com and didn't find further reviews, although did find enough passing coverage to imply people were paying attention to it for a few years later. I don't know if 'internet era' is right here; a lot of stuff from around the turn of the millennium has surprisingly little online coverage. Vaticidalprophet 09:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 04:19, 20 April 2021 (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.