Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witness Insecurity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Witness Insecurity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by a know blocked sockpuppet. It has a severe lack of referencing and citations. Most of the references aren't reliable (the are from IMDb). The content sounds slightly promotional and I question the actual validity of the information in the article. Ceradon talkcontribs 17:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepSee below for upgrade to keep. It's a real film with a few notable actors. North8000 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Changed from "weak keep". Newer work and sourcing on the article has clarified the situation.North8000 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Combining the two titles:
- Working title
- New title:
- Story title:
- Keep Article created in January 2011. Author was blocked four months later for an unrelated issue. His block one year ago notwithstanding, I looked at and gauged the topic itself. Issues brought up by the nominator in regards the original version were addressable. Mis-use of IMDB has now been replaced by reliable sources and the "validity" of the article's content has been properly confirmed.[1] The film had a festival premiere in October 2011 as Witness Insecurity, and only two weeks ago began its theatrical distribution under the title Snitch. We can wait as its now theatrical screenings recieve additional coverage, and allow its further imptovement over time and through regular editing. Perhaps, now that someone able to address concerns has taken a hand, the nominator might consider a withdrawal? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:52, 2 April 2012 (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.