Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fog Warning (film)

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. Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Warning (film)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - The article seems to mainly cover g-man's review of the film and most of the edits on the page were done by someone with a similar name. The film is not notable and article would need to be rewritten if the film became notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. G-man's
  WP:NF and I have more to add. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Update I have just completed initial expansion and sourcing to show significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject.... for an Indy, it gets as much love as hate. Still needs categories, but it now meets
  WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Any indy film will have fewer references than a major blockbuster, but this appears to be a significant enough release to warrant an article. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-- Article has been cleaned, sources have been added, and editors are working to improve the article, Wikipedia:There is no deadline. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment Article has been expanded and sources added since the nomination. New version could benefit from further discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has significantly improved since listing and merits keeping. FaerieInGrey (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2009 (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.