Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropophagous 2000

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. Research has shown the topic as meeting WP:NFILM through WP:NPOSSIBLE. We do not delete notable topics simply because they need work. By keeping, that work may be encouraged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropophagous 2000

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

No secondary sourcing found; current sources are unreliable. Digging found no more sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep IMDb external reviews shows 14 reviews here while some are unreliable I am not sure about the foreign language ones, Cinefantastique is listed as a WikiProject Film reliable source but unfortunately thats a 404 link, but the review should exist if it can be found online, not sure about Horror News net but the other English ones seem unreliable but that still leaves a number of foreign language sources Atlantic306 (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Managed to find the Cinefantastique french review at the wayback machine here so that's one reliable source at least Atlantic306 (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Seems notable, but needs additional sources. If not kept, should be Draftified. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 27 May 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.