Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Spring

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sources found by User:MichaelQSchmidt are satisfactory, for the most part. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Spring

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. All a Google search turns up is unreliable sources, primary sources, and trailers. The cast looks to be spectacularly non-notable, the film producer appears to be non-notable, and the film was never shown in theatres. On Rotten Tomatoes, not a single review from any official site is listed - that's enough of an alarm bell by itself. Some promotional waffle fills the article as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is full of red links and empty of sources. SOXROX (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being full of redlinks or being poorly sourced are not valid reasons for deletion if addressable. (see below). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - It also appears that a third of the article was added by User:Lionheart1864, which is apparently an account with a COI (username is close to that of the publisher of the film.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. Meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. While I can sympathize with the nominator's (otherwise addressable) concerns toward format and sourcing, I do not understand his comment about lack of reliable sources. I was able to quickly find it written of in reliable independent sources New York Times and full length articles in Argus Press (1), Argus Press (2), and Argus Press 93) as well as in Free Lance Star and pay-walled Virginia Pilot Roanoke Times (1) Roanoke Times (2) Roanoke Times (3). Article is currently being fixed.[1] Any additional help would be appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:15, 15 July 2013 (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.