Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek Maggot Bingo

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) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Maggot Bingo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Geek Maggot Bingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable film with nothing to support it found in a WP:BEFORE search. Tagged for notability for 4 years. DEPRODed in July due to "notable director and lots of press coverage." Director may be notable, but film isn't inherently notable WP:NOTINHERITED. And as for "lots of press coverage", I found nothing but videos, blogs, and film directory entries. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to Nick Zedd. Not seeing enough to satisfy WP:NFILM — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Struck based on RotP's research below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It looks like there was a special screening held at the MoMA in 2018, so it may pass NFILM under criteria 2. I'll do more digging. At the very least the MoMA source mentioned a review from back in the day, which I've added to the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think I spent the last 2-4 hours scouring databases and whatnot, but I found enough to establish notability. It looks like there's more coverage, but a lot of it is squirreled away in places that the Internet can't really reach at this point in time (ie, the outlets haven't put it online). I found mentions of Variety and East Village Eye reviews, plus it was covered in a Kim Newman critique. I found some reviews via a college database so it'd pass under that criteria, plus it looks to have been screened as part of a MoMA film series years after its initial release, which would qualify it under criteria 2 since they fairly selective. I'm honestly a little surprised that I found as much as I did. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per reviews and other content added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to ReaderofthePack's excellent additions. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article has been substantially improved with the addition of sources such as MOMA, Variety, Toronto Star and others so that it now passes WP:GNG and deletion is no longer necessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2020 (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.