Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walking to the Waterline

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. Also noting that the nomination is withdrawn with no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walking to the Waterline

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I did a WP:BEFORE and found one suitable and reliable review from TV Guide. Needs one more reliable and suitable review to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The link from Radio Times doesn’t count because it’s a capsule review which is considered insufficient enough to fully establish notability per NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This one is a bit tricky. The content is fairly light, but the film does seem to have ultimately led to the creation of a second, far more notable film. If it's not kept then I suppose an alternative would be to merge and redirect with history to Duane Hopwood. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDB says it was apparently nominated for a Jury award at the Florida Film Festival, might have to go into paper archives to check, it's just before the net got big. Chicago Tribune mentions the film in relation to another file [1]. ONe link to a magazine article about the festival with a one paragraph review/mention of the film [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination wouldn't really help any as only wins give notability. The review might though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found this review from Orlando Sentinel. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three reviews found now, adding keep vote to original comment. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found another review in Boxoffice at ProQuest 1040504002; it's long enough (several paragraphs) to qualify as sigcov. Combined with the reviews from TV Guide and the Orlando Sentinel found above, I think we probably have enough to satisfy the GNG, particularly since (as suggested above) there are likely additional offline sources that we're missing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per User:WikiVirusC and User:Extraordinary Writ. The Film Creator (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2022 (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.