Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan (2010 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logan (2010 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)

Fails WP:NFILM, dubious sourcing. — JFG ^talk 11:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I honestly thought on first glance that it was the X-Men film that was being referred to! The only reference that could possibly be considered an independent RS cited in the article is the River Front Times, but one reference is not enough. Everything else appears to be blogs, self-published, or otherwise not an independent RS. Searching for Logan whilst limiting to articles including the name "Kyle Lawrence" brings up nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the Dove source would be seen as an independent source unless the Dove Foundation was involved with the film production or release. It's just not the strongest source out there and wouldn't keep it on that basis alone. If the Uproxx wasn't clearly written in jest it would be usable, but the piece is pretty obviously satire. (I have to kind of chuckle that it's listed in the article as a serious reaction.) In any case, the only two usable sources would be Dove and the RFT piece, which aren't really the strongest. I'll see if I can find anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's just nothing out there and what is in the article isn't enough. And again, I have to laugh that the Uproxx source was used seriously when it wasn't meant to be serious. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:26, 5 December 2018 (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.