Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satan's Harvest

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.

Satan's Harvest

Satan's Harvest (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)

Procedural nomination. If I express an opinion I will do it in the body of the discussion. This nomination is Neutral and made on the simple basis that a 13+ year old article deserves a discussion rather than summary deletion on the expiry of a PROD. The PROD reason was "Non-notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (films). Only independent source is about George Montgomery, not the film. I can't access it so I don't know whether it goes into the film in more detail, but I assume it doesn't. Google didn't turn up any more notable sources, just IMDB and stuff. (proposed by User:Publicly Visible)" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. So, this is embarrassing, and my first time using
  WP:PROD. The more I looked into it, the more I've become convinced Satan's Harvest is in fact notable due to Roar (film), being inspired during the filming of Satan's Harvest. If nothing else, a section or mention of Roar in Satan's Harvest would help. The rest of the article needs a rewrite as well, IMO. Publicly Visible (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article has
  WP:NFIC "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." Also, it seems to be Matt Monro's only film as an actor. --Bensin (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I agree with the two!votes above. Added some sources for verifiability/reception. The production/legacy/context seems to have attracted more attention than the film itself but all in all, notability is in my view clear. See for yourself.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As my colleagues have noted above this satisfies
  WP:NFILM. There are already two RS discussing the film published more than 5 years after it was made. Central and Adams (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdraw Nomination: I believe I can do this without rule breaking since I nominated it neutrally. I will close the discussion in a moment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:30, 6 December 2023 (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.