Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit of the Game (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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of the Game (film)[edit]

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

~~I don't see any evidence of WP:N notability for this film under WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Largoplazo (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn based on sufficiency of sources presented below. Largoplazo (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources provided by Duffbeerforme appear to satisify WP:NFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gab4gab (talk • contribs) 12:53, March 29, 2017 (UTC)
Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by Duffbeerforme. Deseret News and The Salt Lake Tribune are especially reliable. Largoplazo, whether or not to keep an article depends on the notability of the topic itself, not what it is shown (or not shown) in the article. Would you mind withdrawing your nomination? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that assessment of the notability of a topic is independent of the information or sources given in the article. It isn't clear why I should withdraw my nomination. If others have found evidence of notability that I didn't come across (granted, I'm a little surprised at my own failure to turn up all these sources in this case), and the outcome is Keep, then it will be Keep. I have no problem with that. Largoplazo (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of withdrawing is to conclude the matter expeditiously. No need to continue soliciting additional feedback if everyone so far, including the nominator, agrees to keep. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:54, 29 March 2017 (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.