Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliens Gone Wild

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 delete. There might be notability here, but this article isn't the one we need or deserve. If proper sourcing can be found, then by all means recreate, but until then... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens Gone Wild

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

I genuinely cannot believe this was accepted at AFC. Half of the references are to unreliable sources such as IMDb or RottenTomatoes, a quarter are to generic Google statistics, and the remainder are of questionable reliability. The text on the page sounds great, but it's all just conflated stats and buzzwords. I can't find anything online that isn't a blog, sale site, or bootleg stream. Primefac (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all appearance of notability appears to be the result of severe misuse of references. Artw (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misuse of sources is right. The "immortal classic" ref is straight-up deliberately misleading. --Calton | Talk 17:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the current stated of the article, it appears to be broadcast by a major network, which would make it notable. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hahaahaha that "immortal classic" quote is amazing. Anyway being broadcast by a major network is not a notability criteria. Others are only passing mentions and it does not pass any of the other criteria at WP:NFILM. Galobtter (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BCASTOUTCOMES mentions that criteria. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable film, It is hard to say this film meet even one of 8 points of WP:NFO, some claims of WP:GNG via Google trends were not supported by secondary reportage, all this besides some unreliable sources and the borderline ones.. — Ammarpad (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2017 (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.