Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Sized (2nd nomination)

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) Rollidan (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Sized[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)

Not enough coverage to pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Previous AfD was weak in nature and failed to present the necessary coverage for notability. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Not enough coverage to justify it. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like theatrical films, a television film is not handed an automatic notability freebie just because an IMDb entry offers technical verification that it exists: the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about the film, such as actual reviews by newspaper or magazine TV critics. But besides the IMDb profile, the only other source here is a special-interest magazine reporting a blog-sourced rumor that this film's lead actor had signed to be in it, which is not enough to get this over the "media coverage" test all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That only comes into play if suitable sources are actually shown to exist, and does not hand any article a free exemption from having to show any sources at all just because NEXIST exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not look at the links provided by myself and Jovan below? matt91486 (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't speaking about the existence or non-existence of sources provided after I made my comment — I was addressing the inappropriately condescending tone needed to imply that sources not provided until after I said what I said somehow turn me into a bad Wikipedian for ever having said what I said in the first place. If enough other users vote keep to establish a consensus that the new sources are good enough, then I don't have to reverse my original comment before it can be kept — but my original comment doesn't make me a bad person just because new sources were shown after I made it either. In a nutshell, there was no need for NorthAmerica1000 to actually respond to my comment at all, especially not in a tone that implied that my original comment was negligent or incompetent. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just quickly looking for sources shows various reviews: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]. Also things like [6]. This shows sufficient coverage. matt91486 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clear pass of WP:NFILM having recieved in-depth reviews by The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and New York Daily News (Reuters is just duplicating what THR said and should be removed). I have also found a review on The Seattle Times [7]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging MaskedSinger, Bearcat and JalenFolf to check the posted sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Jovanmilic97 will take a look when I have a chance. Currently slammed! MaskedSinger (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NFILM with multiple independent reviews in reliable sources such as Variety, New York Daily News and Hollywood Reporter, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly meets WP:MOVIE as per a perusal of available sources, including those added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are a clear keep on NFILM grounds. While they spend fair portions on the primary actress (her performance, typecasting etc), there is still enough to meet Sig Cov reviews easily. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of room for improvement, but even a simple gNews search turns up plenty of reviews, and ONGOING discussion of this film in he years since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2019 (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.