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 delete. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bed & Breakfast (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage, sources in article are from non-notable interviews with actor or citations about the actor/not about the film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:NFILM. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A well-sourced entry with two image files, five inline cites and four external links. One cast member, Rúaidhrí Conroy, has numerous acting credits. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Roman_Spinner, I actually checked all the citation and came to a different conclusion. In fact, I concluded--in line with BOVINEBOY--that the article is poorly sourced. The sources are about an actor, not the movie. WP:UNRS is a good read on the sources... As to the Conroy, please read this: WP:NOTINHERITED. It is an important concept of WP:ATA. Thank you! Kolma8 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I've added another source, a Wired article. I disagree with the nominator in that the interviews are non-notable. NemesisAT (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  NemesisAT... Well... You did not added a "Wired article", but a blogpost from Wired.com. There is a difference. And if you actually read that the blogpost says then you will see that it is an aggregation of google searches. Blogposts in general do not meet criteria for reliable citations on WP. Kindly ask you to refer to WP:UGC for more details. In general WP:RS is a good read that can help you to understand BOVINEBOY's position on the matters in regards of the notability of the sources. Kolma8 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. I did my own WP:BEFORE and failed to find anything notable. Four external links: One to Feiss IMDB page (irrelevant, needs to be deleted); one to the short's IMDB (relevant); one to Rotten Tomatoes site (404 - NOT FOUND, needs to be deleted); the last one "Extracts..." is irrelevant and needs to go. None of the sources neither directly about the short or notable. Thus, fails WP:NF. Kolma8 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the very well reasoned deletion argument of Kolma8.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2021 (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.