Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best Two Years

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Two Years[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFP. Available sources are primary in nature or providing only passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this film's inclusion in this SLTribune's top-10 list of LDS cinema ~Awilley (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Coverage in the above-linked The Salt Lake Tribune article is not significant coverage at all; it consists of two short sentences. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large regional newspaper giving their top 10 list a specific regional genre. Here's a NYTimes article also discussing this genre that talks about this film and HaleStorm Entertainment (also nominated for deletion) specifically. ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvements. IE: Rotten Tomatoes has several critic reviews, and IMDB also offers links to multiple reviews. Christianity Today has a review as well, as does efilmcritic and more. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:37, 11 November 2017 (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.