Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Descent: The Abominable Snowman

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Descent: The Abominable Snowman

[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)

Nothing to indicate notability for WP:NFO. No RS either. Htanaungg (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Htanaungg (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ~~leaning~~ ~~keep~~. themoviescene.co.uk has a review, that also lists various alt titles ("Deadly Descent", "Abominable Snowman", the combination of the two "Deadly Descent: The Abominable Snowman" and even the even longer "Deadly Descent: The Legend of the Abominable Snowman").The film is ... #36 in this listing, that includes a small assessment.— MY, OH, MY! 09:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After further research:Strong Keep. There is a review in Czech (@Onel5969:, pinging you at your request). But most of all, 2-3 pages in Ski Films: A Comprehensive Guide, by Bryan Senn (McFarland, 2022), pp. 50-53, an extensive and comprehensive analysis of the film. The 2 reviews + this make the film appear quite notable.— MY, OH, MY! 22:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. If more reviews are found, feel free to ping me.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changing my !vote as per WP:HEY, in light of the sources found by My, Oh, My.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2023 (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.