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. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ragdoll (film)

[edit]

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

Non-notable film without significant coverage. Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alts: Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Concept:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Alt title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Ted Nicolaou. This looks to be one of the many FM movies that got churned out en masse during the late 90s, early 2000s, that never really gained any attention. There may be coverage that isn't on the internet, but I kind of doubt it. I suggest redirecting it to the director's page since he does seem to have notability enough to merit an article. If Devil Dolls survives deletion, I can't entirely see redirecting it there since it's not exactly the same movie but a heavily edited version with a new name, created for a horror anthology. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Technically, I don't think this AfD should have been relisted again. Since it has been, however, I'll take the opportunity to say that I've added a few sources to the article. Granted, most of them are a bit on the trivial side, but they show that it got a bit more coverage than I initially assumed. I was also able to also locate this article from The Hollywood Reporter (which I am unable to read despite my Highbeam account through TWL), and one of the sources alludes to further coverage from THR in terms of rumormongering about the production. Normally, this is less than I would require to vote to keep, but I think there's enough coverage to at least make the situation debatable, especially with the allusion to further offline coverage made in reliable sources. Since I've recently expanded the article (somewhat, at least), I'll ping @Tokyogirl79: and @MichaelQSchmidt:, who also recently contributed to the article but did not vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. It's a suitable stub. I'll go with a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep. Eh, I'm pretty easy, so I'll agree to go for a stub. Good job looking for sources! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

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.