Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Picture

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. Looks like rescued. - Altenmann >t 18:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Picture

Non-notable film. Appears to have had only limited film-festival release and then gone straight to DVD, where it appears to have largely ended up in the online bargain bin. No awards that we can find or other evidence of notability. No notable actors. Contested PROD (why, I'll never figure out). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A far, far cry from meeting notability standards to have its own Wikipedia article. (And the WHY to the reason it was contested is that the editor in question goes around deprodding things for no reason whatsoever and then showing up later to give a Keep vote that doesn't come close to following our standards.) DreamGuy (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good deprod. Sources found per WP:AFTER. Through rescue, some clean up has been performed since nomination. More can be done certainly, but the improved article meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could you be more specific in how the subject now meets WP:NF? I agree that the article has been improved, but I'm still inclined toward deletion. I can be swayed, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Well... per WP:NF and WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I believe I have shown that by coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. The portions of NF that refer to a film 5 years after it has been made, do not apply. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the references to that many notable third party media sources, I'd say obviously, this article meets the requirements for notability. Dream Focus 09:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - references and reviews are evidence of notability. Varbas (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Varbas has been banned as sockpuppet of banned User:Azviz. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Varbas has been indef-blocked (similar to banned) as a puppet of Azviz. The only good that came out of his unprodding this article is that the article has now been improved per WP:AFTER to meet guidelines and concerns. Please look at the before in comparison to the after now that AfD has forced improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 31 May 2009 (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.