Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Leading Man

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 per WP:SK#3. There are multiple significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. (Non-administrator closure.) SmileBlueJay97 talk 04:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Leading Man

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

As per WP:BEFORE, I searched for non-primary reliable sources that give the subject of this AfD significant coverage, and found the content wanting. Furthermore, subject does not appear to meet notability per WP:NFILM#Other evidence of notability, as it does not appear to meet any of the criteria set forth in that section. Perhaps this article has been created too soon and can be incubated until it has meet the notability guideline. Therefore not meeting WP:GNG, or WP:NFILM, I am nominating this article for incubation or deletion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per easily meeting WP:NF. Inexplicably, the nom's BEFORE failed, somehow missing full length reviews in Holywood Reporter, The Epoch Times, and the articles in Meniscus Magazine, Austin Fusion Magazine, Hyphen Magazine, Indiewire, Hollywood Report Card, and elsewhere. Sure, the article has some addressable issues, but topic notability is affirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic per WP:GNG as reflected in the article body and the links Michael provided above. In addition, a film getting reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter is pretty much a lock for notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I need to declare that I was the WP:AFC reviewer who accepted this. I use the criteria of WP:AFD in my assessment and my opinion was at the time that, while borderline at acceptance, this would be improved to merit an article without discussion. Obviously this discussion is taking place, thus proving that element incorrect, but it does pass all our formal hurdles for being kept, and has been improved as I hoped and expected. Fiddle Faddle 09:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fiddle Faddle. I suppose my concerns stem from it being tagged for notability by the nominator at a time when it had enough sourcing to show notability... and that he then sent it to AFD after it was further improved. This may have been based upon the poor "find sources" template added by his tag, as the simple term "A Leading Man" is so generic the number of false results is overwhelming. This was explained to him and he was invited back to reconsider his erroneous BEFORE, but he has apparently chosen to ignore the request. Even though AFD is not to force improvements I was hoping that being shown the additional available sourcing would have him withdraw his nom... but if he does not, I believe we have a Speedy Keep (clause 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are heading towards a quick closure, too. The movie was a challenge to source initially, but time has also moved on, and more referecnes are arriving over time. For me the only possible verdict other than a 'keep' is a 'not yet'. But I believe that the time is right now, albeit borderline when I accepted the draft. We do accept borderline drafts at times precisely because the community can often take things forward. Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 7 October 2014 (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.