Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Star

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Star

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

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

Sources cited are unreliable, creation is likely UPE. I cannot find any better reference material about this film. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources cited are unreliable"???? The Guardian, unreliable, how? Starburst and MovieMaker, unreliable? Sorry, no. You haven't read the page carefully. That makes THREE reviews. How many do you want? (and "Likely UPE"=maybe not UPE; and nothing on the page shows promotional intent; not a reason to delete). STRONG KEEP! -Mushy Yank. 10:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article created by blocked spammer, likely paid promotion - but there are enough RS reviews to pass WP:NFILM and more reviews linked from the sources in the article - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reviews in reliable sources such as The Guardian, Movie Maker, and Starburst, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. It has multiple reliable sources, including The Guardian and WBAI Radio, was nominated for the award at the Fantasy Filmfest, and is now distributed by Prime Video. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFILM with multiple critical reviews on the film. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes GNG with reviews cited. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2025 (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.