Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightmare Nurse

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. Not inclined to relist this for a third time. Note this no consensus close does not preclude a renomination at AfD in the near future, if someone wants to run this through the process again. Daniel (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Nurse[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)

Non-notable film, beyond mentioned in content farm articles, it does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reviews from Inquistr and Bustle, both appear to be independent with editorial oversight. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at WP:RS/N, and both are problematic from previous reviews, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_240#Inquisitr and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262#RfC:_Bustle. I would say that at best, they are content farms and them putting out an article on a TV film that no other major source has covered should be looked at closely and taken with a grain of salt. BOVINEBOY2008 02:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete due to the lackluster sourcing and the fact that I can't find any other reviews. For instance a whole section of the Inquisitor "review" is about "The Deadly Side Effects Of Oxycontin." Which really isn't related to the film. So, it's say to say they are relevant or usable reviews. I'm on the weak side because they do exist though and it's likely someone can find something else that would be adequate, but I think it's a keep as things currently are. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources present in the article are not on the blacklist. They are secondary sources that review the film. I believe it meets WP: N. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:11, 15 January 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.