Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend from Hell

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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend from Hell

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

Fails WP:NF and WP:NPOV. Passes gng though. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Finding in-depth reviews for 25-year-old "B" movies is a bit of a challenge. There's a pretty good writeup here though, and another here. I would have expected more for a movie that's supposedly attracted a cult following. Ivanvector (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are two reviews on RT and one from AllMovie, plus an article on the musical. I did remove the cult movie remark since there's really nothing to truly back that up anywhere, but there is enough here for a weak keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Joe Bob Briggs did a review. Not sure if that's enough for notability. Allmovie is really not worth much in terms of notability; they're a comprehensive guide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JBB is definitely usable as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the world is a slightly better place when you know that Joe Bob Briggs is still in Texas and reviewing drive-in movies. Maybe I could finally shake off this malaise if I knew that there were more planned sequels to The Toxic Avenger. And, no, a big budget, PG-13 remake doesn't count – that's an entirely different kind of abomination to film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I read that bit in Sam Elliot's voice ala Big Lebowski final voice-over. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good God, you're right! I can hear it now, too. If I'm subconsciously channeling cult films, maybe it's time for an intervention. I should have known that obsessively writing about cult films on Wikipedia would have this effect eventually. One the positive side, I found a few more sources: a snippet view that seems to insinuate that the film was reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle, an interview with the star on a random blog (not very useful for notability but an interesting read), and some production details from the Los Angeles Times. All in all, not a good haul, but if someone else confirms my suspicion that the book is quoting the SF Chronicle, I guess that's enough for me to vote to keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nobody has commented, but I guess there are enough sources to keep it. There are indications that it received significant coverage in reliable sources, even if we can't quite locate them today. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, poorly received film, but the amount of coverage is good. — Cirt (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (WP:SK?) per the nominator offering in his own comment that the topic passes WP:GNG. THAT gives us a pass of WP:NF. I do not see how a film article speaking about a film's production and reception somehow violates WP:NPOV... and even were it to do so, THAT would be a matter for regular editing, and not deletion of a topic meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:GNG supersedes WP:NF? --Mr. Guye (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NF is a list of additional guidelines for films; WP:GNG is always adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Yes. Please refer to film notabilty's "General principles". No aspersion intended, but the other attributes are considered only when the GNG is failed, and when it is met, addressing concerns becomes a matter of regular editing. And there is no shame in a considered withdrawal. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded searches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

to include Non-English releases:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.