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. This seems to be becoming a haven for solid H20 Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (film) (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)

Completing nomination for 122.17.60.88, rationale is as follows: The film may not meet the criteria of WP:GNG, because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, it does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTFILM#Other evidence of notability. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Keep I'm really struggling to find any source for this film, which appears to be non-notable. I suspect there must be something in print from the time of release, but aside from a couple of things of uncertain length in Google Books snippet view, not a popular movie. Maybe newspaper libraries would show more, but the NY Times and LA Times have articles online from this period and I can't see anything in there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I formerly voted delete, but others did better than me at finding sources. This appears to now meet WP:NOTFILM. Good work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG IronKnuckle (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Whilst a low-key film, reviews do exist [1]. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I included TV Guide in the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In addition to what I've added to the article, this appears to be a relatively substantial review, and this mentions LaPaglia and the use of makeup. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sufficient coverage from various reliable sources. Some are not readily available to cite (such as the makeup book), but that should not be a strike against notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROFESSIONAL, enough material from reliable sources to write a Reception section. I've added two book sources. Receiving critical commentary in a newspaper, two guides and three movie books should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements since nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per article inprovements by Erik Good job.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 23 January 2013 (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.