Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Days in April

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

Two Days in April

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

This film does not appear to be notable, despite the fact that the director and his other films are. I have been able to identify only the most cursory, passing mention of this film—nothing remotely rising to the standards of WP:N or NF. ^Bongo_matic 04:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — [[User:Cri--kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)sco 1492|Crisco 1492]] (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this article, it provides quite a bit of background on the film, this article should be expanded not deleted. If you don't think there is enough material, add more rather than just nominate for deletion.: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/the_bonus/12/20/documentary/index.html Neil Kelty (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that coverage is sparse, at least when doing a search engine test. Here is one article available online. Here is another that isn't. It may help to ask someone to do a search in subscription-only news databases to see if additional coverage exists. In addition, film and sports periodicals will not always put their articles online, so there may be something more. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. ^Bongo_matic 04:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Keep and continue expansion and sourcing. While I respect that the nominator found only "the most cursory, passing mention of this film", my own searches found the film is indeed covered and in independent secondary sources, some in great detail, and meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NF toward presumption of notability. There is the above-mentioned in-depth article found in Sports Illustrated which is far from a "cursory" or "passing mention". I also found a decent article about the film in MovieMaker Magazine which is more that a "cursory" or "passing mention". And there is also Film.org And while yes, it is also covered in non-RS sites such as The Movie Freaks and Young Hollywood such information can lead to more sources, just as can the information included in the Netfilx press release on Reuters (yes.. non-rs or press releasees are not an RS, but the information therein can lead to verifiable sources). As Erik writes above, there is more behind pay walls. My own sense is that we have enough to presume notability, retain the article, and continue work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 9 June 2011 (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.