Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Fever

Prairie Fever

[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)

Single source article, showing no RS or SIGCOV. Film was direct-to-DVD and has no visible cultural impact. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entries in the following books including critical assessment: https://archive.org/details/videosourcebookg0005unse/page/2460/mode/2up?q=%22Prairie+Fever%22+%22Stephen+Bridgewater%22 ; https://archive.org/details/radiotimesguidet0000unse_n4y0/page/954/mode/2up?q=%22Prairie+Fever%22+%22Stephen+Bridgewater%22 and in Western Movies: A Guide to 5,105 Feature Films, 2d ed. - Page 254; and in Catálogo Do Cinema Faroeste - Vol. 2 - Page 82 and Movies Made for Television: 2005-2009 - Page 82 AT LEAST. Has a BEFORE been performed? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those do not qualify as RS per WP:NFSOURCES. "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ and find some of those sources individually significant; their sum would be significant anyway, making the film meet the general requirements. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did remove the sources added.....and I obviously restored them. NOTHING in WP:NFILMS says these sources (whose assessment regarding their significance I contest anyway) cannot BE USED. And to remove so many sources during an AfD (especially when you are the nominator!) is bordering disruption. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC) (Also indicating that NFILMS indicates that those sources would be "non-RS" (!) when quoting a section about significance, not reliability, is plainly erroneous.[reply]
If all you can find is a bunch of mentions in listing guides, that argues against notability, not for it. Per WP:NFSOURCES, such listings do not constitute RS, proving only that WP:ITEXISTS. As for their sum being significant, quantity does not equal quality. See WP:SOURCESEARCH. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree with pretty much everything you say (except self-evidences such as "quantity does not equal quality" etc, obviously) but I will leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems good enough! Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 17:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are reviews in the New York Times, The Times Herald and The Tampa Tribune which is enough for GNG. There's also additional coverage here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]