Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Creepy Line

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Creepy Line

[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)

Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the film has just been released there are not many references or reviews yet. Please can this article have a stay of execution for a couple of weeks, then if not notable it can go.John a s (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it needs at least 2 full reviews in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of 21 November article has links to 5 reviews, please check if this meets WP:NFILM guideline.John a s (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs the analysis of the review sources that were added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just wanted to note that of the sources I added, only one could be easily identified as a review. The sourcing is about the film, but because of the film topic there is discussion that kind of goes a bit beyond just talking about the documentary. TBH, it would be pretty funny if this was kept based on these sources since they're all sources I found... using Google. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references to significant coverage in reliable sources coverage have been added to the article as above, such as Vanity Fair, The Edge, and Epoch Times so that WP:GNG is passed and there is no longer a need for deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while not all the refs/reviews are suitable there are sufficient to warrant retention and demonstrate notability under NFILM. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2018 (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.