Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing Numbers

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. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Numbers

[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)

Couldn't find any notability to meet WP:NFILM. Htanaungg (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some coverage for this film that points towards it being notable. I added one to the page - I can't access the full book but what I could see points towards it being enough to establish some notability. It also looks like it's been reviewed in the Austin-American Statesman and the Observer. I can't access the full articles since I have to wait for my subscription to be renewed, but if someone could check these that would be awesome of them. This also looks potentially usable, but I have a feeling it may be a passing mention. I know that so far this isn't a lot, but the way it's talked about gives off the strong impression that there is more out there that isn't available on the internet due to the time period. Even major papers are still struggling to get their archives online, tbh. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sight & Sound look to have done a review. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned in this book from Serpent's Tail, although that's somewhat of a shaky source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Review from the LA Times. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm not posting this to be snarky - this is taking a lot of digging to uncover, to be honest. The early or pre-internet stuff tends to be a bit challenging, especially if it's not something that's super mainstream. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to sources from ReaderofthePack, there are multiple reviews that look to occupy a significant part of a page from different UK newspapers at the time, including The Stage, Evening Herald, Irish Independent per The British Newspaper Archive. I think everything combined here is probably enough for general notability. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reviews in reliable sources such as The Observer, The Herald and The Irish Independent that show a clear pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2021 (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.