Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxfire Light

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 ! 17:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foxfire Light

(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) 23:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a snippet about it in this book, but that's the extent of the coverage that I can find. There are some capsule reviews at Google Books, but they don't count toward notability per WP:NFILM. Maybe someone else can locate sources, but I don't really see anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We might be able to justify this as an article about the book and film together. There's one critic review on RT and I found this news story, although that one's a bit brief. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and does meet WP:NF.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:NF which I am beginning to wonder if the nom has ever read. Most of the points made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightstick (film) apply here. Especially those made by MichaelQSchmidt about WP:NEXIST. The nom still is ignoring WP:BEFORE in these AFD's. MarnetteD|Talk 20:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

year/type:(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)

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

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

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

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

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

USA Alt:(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:IMPROVE, WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few reliable sources out there, and enough to meet WP:GNG. For example, there's a review on Rotten Tomatoes. I think there's enough refs to build an article around, WP:BEFORE should've been followed, because I don't think deletion is the greatest option here. Omni Flames (talk) 00:02, 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.