Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linewatch
- 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Linewatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found an article from The Hollywood Reporter. Needs more coverage in order to eligible. The link from Reuters doesn't count because it's the same word-for-word article as that of the Hollywood Reporter. The Film Creator (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Second review at CineMagazine [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I withdraw this nomination since the Cinemagazine review and the Hollywood Reporter article are enough to pass WP:NFSOURCES. Excellent work to User:Donaldd23. The Film Creator (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2022 (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.