Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightstick (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nightstick (film)[edit]

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

The article is unsourced and it fails WP:NF. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cast alone means that it meets WP:NF. The nom should take a look at WP:BEFORE. MarnetteD|Talk 23:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to have the alternate title Calhoun. It got reviewed by Variety, as in this snippet view. It also appears to have some degree of coverage in this book, and this brief production note seems to be about it. It's very difficult to even find a trivial mention about it, though. I guess you could make the argument that the Google Books results lead one to believe there's offline coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MarnetteD should take a look at WP:NF before making recommendations about guidelines to others. The only part of that guideline referencing cast states "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." An ephemeral and award- and significant coverage-free TV movie doesn't cut it. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know WP:NF inside and out. I mentioned the cast as only one reason that the article met the criteria. As shown by NRP there is coverage in at least one other source. BTW since it aired on a commercial network it wasn't "free" MarnetteD|Talk 22:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MarnetteD|Talk 22:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarnetteD|Talk 22:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marnette is indeed correct. Meets GNG for films with a notable cast.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF through available sources. I note that a topic's notability is dependent upon sources being available and NOT upon their ever being used. THAT's a matter for regular editing, and it does not improve the project to delete simply because a topic article might start out looking poor. We fix. WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 9 July 2016 (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.