Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Cool

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Cool

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Quiet Cool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one review and a cite in Box Office Mojo, which is not a RS. Could not find anything else online. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LA Times review in article, plus DVD Talk [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – with reviews in the New York Times (ProQuest 426350810), the Toronto Star (ProQuest 435582317), and Variety (ProQuest 1438477012), among others, this film clearly meets WP:NFILM/the GNG, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You realize this article has gotten more attention since being AfD'd then any other time in its sad little life? Put it out of its misery FFS. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an article doesn't get a lot of traffic is no grounds for deletion. Several editors have presented valid reviews and your opinion is still to delete it. Its quite confusing why you don't agree with policy. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's still a mess! I haven't been on here very long, but I notice the same cycle playing out over and over. A skimpy article gets AfD'd; somebody finds a review or two, just enough to get a "keep close"; nothing actually gets done to the article; it sits there for a few more years until somebody notices it; lather, rinse, repeat.
    I'm frustrated because it seems like rescuing articles from the evil deletionists is a higher priority than either improving them or letting them go. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Several reviews have been demonstrated above. If you are so concerned, add them to the article and improve it. The state of the article is not a reason for deletion, you would know that if you read policy. This is just an essay, but why not WP:DOITYOURSELF? Fix it...don't delete it. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And the people who found those reviews are welcome to add them. AfD is for when you don't think the article's worth trying to save. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know that policy states that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article", right? See WP:NEXIST if unconvinced. AfD is for proving or disproving an article's inclusion on Wikipedia. When sources are found that don't have to be added to the article as that is not a requirement of AfD. So, if you feel so strongly about sources being added, I again say, WP:DOITYOURSELF, don't pass it off to others. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:15, 21 June 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quiet_Cool&oldid=1094638328"