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The result was withdrawn by me. (non-administration closure)) --Gh87 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George and Mildred (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Previously PRODded but was contested with improper reasoning, such as: "fairly obviously notable". The article has a lot of problems, despite its status as a film of the British series George and Mildred: no citations, no real perspectives, and no notability established as the film itself. Merging into the article of the series is possible, but that should be after the AfD will have been closed: doing so during the AfD span is against policy. If deleted and then re-created with same content without proper reasoning, that would become a subject to ((db-g4)). Even the cast list, even if it helps "pass" the WP:NFILM, won't help the article stand on its own. --Gh87 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Now I have seen a lot of improvements, such as the newer "Reception" section. Therefore, the film is well-known as the critically-panned adaptation of sitcom George and Mildred, and its status is well-covered enough. However, there should be legitimate arguments and votes to motivate me into withdrawing; unfortunately, I won't do it right now at the current state of AfD and the nominated article, but at least the room for improvement is packing up densely. --Gh87 (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The attempts of a struggling UK film industry during 1971-80 to salvage its position by porting TV sitcoms is itself notable (see Sarah Street's "British national cinema", Routledge, 2008, ISBN 0415384214, pages 110-112); "George and Mildred" is one of the bookends (and low-points) of that phenomenon. It also continues to be referenced in that context and in itself: see for example this 2006 article and this 2010 article, both from The Guardian. Not positive references, but notability does not need to be complimentary. AllyD (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was a substantial (if often-reviled) film, and while there are fewer reviews easily found on-web than one might have expected, some coverage is out there. Here's an article from Bright Lights Film Journal that describes it as "one of the worst films ever made in Britain. . . . so strikingly bad, it seems to have been assembled with a genuine contempt for its audience."[1] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a spin off of a very popular sitcom, it is certainly notable. It would have undoubtedly received plenty of coverage on its release - we can't judge notability of films from this era based on a Google search.--Michig (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, no valid rationale for deletion provided. The nominator apparently did not follow WP:BEFORE, but rather purely based his criticism on the state of the article at the time. His comment that he won't withdraw his nomination until the article has improved more suggests that he is trying to use this AFD purely to force changes to the article, not because he actually has a good reason for its deletion, and it's not even clear that he ever even thought it should be deleted. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2011 (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.