Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triggermen

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The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator with no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triggermen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (films). No critic reviews on RT. Seems most online sources are to watch the trailer or buy the movie. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reviews found at Time Out and Film4. And in a common-sense way any film featuring Pete Postlethwaite has to be encyclopedi-worthy. PamD 22:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much noticed in the US, mebbe, but many reviews turn up from in Britain and Ireland. Already a BBC review cited in the article. Also found so far, via Google, are reviews at:
- Variety [1].
- Sunday Mercury (Birmingham) [2]
- The Telegraph (very brief review)[3]
- entertainment.ie [4]
- RTÉ [5]

Though generally disliked by the aforementioned critics, it seems there's enough here to withstand AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found and offered that show that even a "generally disliked" movie can meet WP:NF and WP:GNG. I'll gladly head over and perform some sourcing and expansion to turn that stub into a start or c class, but I would suggest the nominator consider a withdrawal, as we genrally do not delete brand new stub articles on notable topics if they can be improved through regular editing, and AFD is not a process intended to be used to forcing such cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nom I apologize for not doing more research before nominating it. That's the beauty of teamwork here though. It looks like someone is already improving the article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate the withdrawl. And though I doubt if there would be any major complaint if I closed this myself as a "keep per nom's withdrawal and no votes to delete", perhaps someone who had not already commented might elect to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 21 March 2012 (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.