Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Choice of Two

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) Ya sh ! 07:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Choice of Two

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

The article is unsourced and it fails WP:NF. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the points made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightstick (film) apply here. Especially those made by User:MichaelQSchmidt about WP:NEXIST. The nom still is ignoring WP:BEFORE in these AFD's. MarnetteD|Talk 19:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NOtable cast.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF through available sources. I remind the nominator that a topic's notability is dependent upon sources being available and NOT upon their ever being used. THAT's a matter for regular editing, and it does not improve the project to delete an arguably notable topic simply because it might start out looking poor. We fix. WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this film meets WP:GNG. There are a number of sources out there, and since notability is based on the sources available, whether or not the article was unsourced is irrelevant. Omni Flames (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted above, even if an article is unsourced as written, GNG is still passed if sufficient reliable source coverage exists to repair it with. In addition to the sources noted above, I've found a review in The Globe and Mail from when it later aired on CBC Television in 1982 — and that's a gold-standard source, of the type that counts for as much by itself as five or six regional newspapers combined. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per user above, notable cast, plenty of reliable sources available. Quality of context may not be considered in this case. Millbug ^talk 03:45, 17 July 2016 (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.