Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devil's Child

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Child[edit]

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

Notability hasn't been adressed since being raised in 2007, and the subject does not seem notable Lissajous (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to have received coverage from independent, third party sources - [1][2][3][4][5][6]. AFD is not for editorial problems. WossOccurring (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the first two of the references you've put here - neither of them seem to mention the subject. The later references are to online databases of films, or links to vendors of videos which unsurprisingly include the subject film but wouldn't seem to comprise "coverage". Lissajous (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have begun improving the article and invite assistance. My own WP:BEFORE has found multiple reviews of the film from 1997 through 2004, most panning the film for its being a poor quality rip-off of Rosemary's Baby... but WP:GNG does not demand positive press. A film can meet WP:N by being crappy as well. And in further meeting WP:NF, the film has had commercial re-release in 2005... 8 years after initial release, and had been aired as recently as 2008... 11 years after initial release. Its a keeper. A pity that it has not been improved since 2007, but so what? If a concern can be corrected with normal editing, per guideline an article does not then somehow merit deletion. Far better to fix it than toss it because no one else did so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Added additional other-language-title searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews found and incorporated into the article by MichaelQSchmidt (New York Daily News, Chicago Sun-Times, The Washington Post, and The San Diego Union-Tribune) confirm notability. Kudos to MichaelQ for doing the requisite legwork. J04n(talk page) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw from AfD Motivation for deletion no longer holds - Thanks for the contributions made, and kudos to Schmidt, for the improvements made to the article. Could an Admin close this now as a keep? Lissajous (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2009 (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.