Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Rollin' (film)

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. References found that address the nominator's concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get Rollin' (film)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable film, poorly referenced. Jax 0677 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep: ~~No significant coverage found in a quick search.~~ Borderline WP:GNG pass. Bsoyka (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 21:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
@Bsoyka: There are two detailed articles from The New York Times and The New Yorker- how is that not WP:SIGCOV? VickKiang (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, must've skimmed right past those. They were marked unreliable by a tool I use because of the weird Blogspot links. Updated to weak keep. Bsoyka (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was the same issue for me as well- my script highlighted all of these as unreliable... VickKiang (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or maybe merge. Limited information could easily be incorporated into Roller disco. Jinian (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am also OK with a merge or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete, not likely to improve as an article~~. Shwcz (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article references three reviews in The New York Times, The New Yorker and Indiewire which are significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so passing WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG and NFILM through reviews cited in the article. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The reviews from The New York Times and The New Yorker appear to be WP:RS, independent and WP:SIGCOV. Indiewire's one-paragraph coverage is only debatably SIGCOV, but two solid sources and one somewhat weak one would IMO make WP:GNG borderline passed. As The NY Times and The New Yorker are prominent nation-wide publications, these critics are likely nationally known and would pass WP:NFILM criteria 1; @Shwcz:, I've also added a reception section, which would probably partially address your concern. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2022 (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.