Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsterwolf

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. Given the addition of multiple reviews (sources) to the article, it appears that there is consensus that it should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterwolf

[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)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep One review found at Dread Central [[1]] Donaldd23 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One review is not sufficient evidence of notability. Two is the bare minimum per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 20:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with people only able to find one review we have no where near the sourcing to show this is a notable work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not have access to the Chicago Tribune article, but I believe if it is a lengthly review than that should satisfy NFILM? Anonymous 7481 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY, article now meets NFILM! Anonymous 7481 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exercising WP:AGF here as all three reviews from Dread Central, Chicago Tribune and Spielfilm have been used by admin Reader of the Pack to build a reception section since the article has been nominated, passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on reviews mentioned above.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 3 July 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.