Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Evil (film) (2nd nomination)

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live Evil (film)

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

Film appears to be a more modern version of direct to video. I haven't been able to track down any coverage in the press. No professional reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Fails WP:NFILM Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Note I never saw the article by this name that was deleted in 2008 for blatant copyvio. I have no doubt that THAT deletion was proper, however THIS one is NOT that one and does not suffer from copyvio. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per adequately meeting WP:NF. While it would be nice to find a review in The New York Times, the NYT does not usually bother with independent low-budget horror films. I did however find a nice article in The Tampa Tribune [1] Nor are Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic the only other review sites to consider. Using perhaps different search parameters than the nominator, I found suitable independent reviews in genre sources DVD Talk [2] Bloody Disgusting [3] Fangoria [4] Fatally Yours [5] 10,000 Bullets [6] FIlm Critics United [7] 411mania [8] and a great number of others.[9] The film has received the attention of those who review its genre. Yes, the article will benefit from expansion and improvement through use of available sources, but we do not delete what can be so easily fixed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Over the last 3-1/2 hours,[10] the article has gone through cleanup, expansion, and sourcing to turn what was originally nominated into a comprehensive and sourced article that properly serves the project.[11] Can more be done? Sure. Has notability been asserted and sourced? Yup. Shall we toss something that has been proven AS improvable? I would think not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found. Dream Focus 08:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per improvements made by Schmidt. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2011 (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.