Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black XXX-Mas

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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black XXX-Mas

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

Does not meet WP:NFP or other other evidence of notability for films. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as these: [1], [2]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be more substantial hits. For example, The Enchanted Screen: The Unknown History of Fairy-Tale Films by Jack Zipes and published by Routledge, which dedicates most of one page and perhaps more (difficult to tell with Google Books sometimes). It also seemed to attract some attention in the Belgian media: [3] from De Standaard and [4] from De Morgen. There's also a review from Film Threat listed at the IMDb, but I can't get it to load at archive.org. I hate how the IMDb encodes external links; it makes everything much harder than necessary when they go dead. This is a very brief review, but there's also [5] from DVD Talk. Normally, capsule reviews are discounted by WP:NFILM, but I think we need to consider the context of the film's 11-minute runtime. It seems kind of borderline, but I'm falling on the "keep" side because it seems likely from the amount of trivial mentions on Google Books that there's additional coverage in offline sources. For example, this book calls it controversial. If that controversy was enough to be mentioned in passing, it seems entirely likely that other sources have dedicated more space to it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2016 (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.