Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When the Lights Go Down

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The result was Speedy Keep - Withdrawn - The article is vastly improved and is no longer a copyvio. No issues regarding notability. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the Lights Go Down

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

Delete or Major content slash - Article appears to be a complete copyvio, not sure that it is salvageable other than the first sentence. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've butchered the cruft ~~and see no evidence of notability.~~ duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you use the word 'butchered'? Bloody hell, bit unhinged. I personally think the works of an eminent critic like Pauline Kael merit articles, and a list of the movies reviewed is useful. Certainly 'salvageable', - why all the over the top language? They are notable works of film criticism, the volumes of film criticism of Pauline Kael, I don't think philistine butchery is the best thing. Sayerslle (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable book by a notable critic... a book that has itself been both praised and panned in reliable sources for years [1], thus assuring its own independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obviously meets inclusion guidelines. See (for example) news hits from near its release, demonstrating that it was reviewed by the LA Times, the NY Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Chicago Tribune. 09:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

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.