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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Promethea (2010 TV Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Fails WP:NF. I found one review by a non-notable critic (Film Pilgrim). Rotten Tomatoes shows zero reviews by critics. Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I'm of two minds here. The article is 1-2 days old and we shouldn't bite newbies. Secondly, its not a hoax since it has an IMDB reference. So, it passes WP:V But it doesn't seem to be a succesful or WP:N film judging from its IMDB rating. So, the person deciding this discussion will have to decide whether notability is more important than verifiability here. I'm glad I won't have this task. --Artene50 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: At 15 unsourced words, the original stub[1] seemed destined to be brought to AFD. While I was able to expand it and make it a much better looking 671 word article[2] (hope its author watched and understood the step-by-step process),[3] this was done through use of websites which have not yet having gone through the processes for determining their suitability for such genre topics. If non-English sources treat it better than did English ones, we may yet turn this sows ear into a silk purse. Note: If kept, the article will need to be moved to Journey to Promethea, as we do not need a diambig for this title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The three review websites (Sci-fi online, Film Pilgrim & Movie Scribes) look like reliable sources. The reviews establish notability and verifiability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2012 (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.