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. Tone 20:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Bug and a Bag of Weed[edit]

A Bug and a Bag of Weed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a film, not making or reliably sourcing any serious claim to notability per WP:NFILM. The only notability claim in evidence here is that the film exists, which is not in and of itself an inclusion freebie in the absence of any actual sources to establish passage of WP:GNG. But all I can find in any real media outlet (as opposed to blogs and film directories like IMDb) is one review in one magazine, which is a start but not enough all by itself -- and it doesn't have any "inherent" notability claim, such as notable film awards, strong enough to earn the "keep in spite of poor referencing" treatment in lieu of having to have a lot more reliable source coverage than this. Also probable conflict of interest, as the article was started by an editor whose username matches the name of the film's screenwriter. Nomination withdrawn as another user has found better sources than I was able to; if this discussion proceeds any further, it is to do so without my name on it, because I categorically disown it, do not stand by it and refuse to have my name associated with it any further. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearcat: Which magazine reviewed it? I found where the movie was covered (in enough depth to qualify as a review of sorts, I suppose) in an academic press book, along with some coverage of production. With the magazine review this could safely squeak through NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• On a side note, this is kind of one of those "be careful about covering yourself in some way" since what I'm finding isn't all on the positive side. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Balle010 (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Newly added citations support notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The citations in the article are sufficient to establish the WP:GNG. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 23:16, 28 September 2020 (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.