Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanking Love
Appearance
Source: 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The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanking Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment seems to meet one of the requirements of WP:NF in its having a commercial re-release more than 5 years after initial release. Will do some research. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot about that part. I think that this might be saved. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worry. Its re-release in 2000 is more easily sourced than its initial, as I have found some places saying 1994, and others saying 1995. Will dig more later this evening. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot about that part. I think that this might be saved. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and request input from Japanese language-reading Wikipedians. I have performed some cleanup and sourcing. Not only has the film had a re-release 5 years after its original release, but it has a strange history... marking the feature debut of an actual modern-day cannibal. With respects to the nom, I believe this one is savable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:35, 12 December 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.