Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Intrusion

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. v/r - T P 00:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live Intrusion[edit]

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

The article subject doesn't have sufficient notability to meet the criteria of WP:MOVIE. The actual content is stubby: one paragraph of technical data on recording and release and the other is a paraphrasing of the two available reviews, neither of which are from nationally know critics, and one of which suggests the home video is "marginal". The rest is transcribed lists. Note that the article was given a GA assessment by an eager-to-please reviewer and a subsequent GAR was closed due to low activity. Hekerui (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Hekerui (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Excuse me, but don't put my name in your mouth sweetie. I never meet the editor who nominated the article nor are we, or had, even talked anywhere. I was only reviewing the article when I was asked to on the talk page of WP:GA. Please keep your comments to yourself, thank you. I am not going to vote weather or not the article should stay since I am involved in with the article. AJona1992 (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NF through commentary and discussion in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. A film does not always have to be reviewed by a "nationally known" reviewer in order to meet inclusion guidelines. A notable "stub article" is just fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per fucking duh and per WP:NALBUMS (specifically the part where the official releases of a notable band inherit the band's notability). I am utterly appalled that someone would try to delete a good article, especially when the reason seems to be that they disagreed with the GA-promotion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an album. And watch your language. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is. And I'll speak how I damn well feel like. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Headbomb. I think its childish to put an article up for deletion after the result from a GAR was less than expected, which is what I believe is the case for this AfD. GamerPro64 18:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I read the GAR as it was progressing, it wasn't closed due to low activity - it was rightly closed as Keep with proper procedure. Szzuk (talk) 19:31, 17 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.