Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excessive Force II: Force on Force

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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Force II: Force on Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notwithstanding coverage in five websites (Cold Fusion Video Reviews, Doug Pratt's Laserdisc Review, DVD Talk, DVD Verdict, and Stomp Tokyo review—a couple of which could be classified full-length reviews, but are all remarkable in that they demonstrate that someone actually watched the movie—none of which constitutes a "nationally known critic"), this (awesomely titled) significant coverage in reliable sources, nor have I found any evidence that it has met any of the other criteria suggested at WP:NF. The editor who removed the {{prod}} suggested that the film had been "widely distributed", a criterion which, to have any meaning, cannot be read to mean "available on amazon.com". I've found no other evidence that it was. Bongomatic 04:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--I don't see any evidence of notability. Having said that, Bongo, I'm getting it on Netflix. C'mon by! Drmies (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For above... certainly no notable reviews. I also note that the prod tag was removed by our serial deprodder. If he'd be banned from deprodding things it'd save a lot of people a lot of time, as he doesn't ever seem to have any reasoning at all behind removing them and then we all just have to waste our time with what should have been automatic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For direct to video releases, I do think that available on Amazon is a good definition of widely distributed. The criterion is meant to distinguish fan films shown in basements or given on home burned DVD's to friends not commercial bombs. As for reviews, I'd say that there are enough. [1] [2] [3] [4]Eluchil404 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks official sources, WP:N and/or WP:V. Versus22 _talk 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the lack of citations to reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2009 (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.