Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring of Darkness

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bgsu98 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Darkness

[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)

Fails

WP:NFILM Bgsu98 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All I've found so far is the Felix Vasquez review. That would be seen as a RS, but it's not enough on its own to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the strongest article, but I was very surprisingly able to find enough coverage to muster a keep on my end. I legit wasn't expecting to find what I did. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by ReaderofthePack. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources reviews added to the article since nomination so that
WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 4 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.