Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Catch a Yeti

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. Counting the nominator's statement in the discussion that they now believe the GNG to be met (and per WP:HEY), the outcome is a consensus to keep. BD2412 T 01:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Catch a Yeti

[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:NFILM, most cites are to movie databases, which are not significant coverage. Yeeno (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because it's possible to verify that they exist — they have to have some substantive notability claim, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film or television critics in real media to establish passage of WP:GNG. But this is not referenced well enough: nearly all of the footnotes are to either primary sources, such as directory entries and YouTube videos, or Q&A interviews in which the filmmaker is talking about his own work in the first person. There's only one acceptable source that starts to establish notability, but one acceptable source doesn't finish establishing notability all by itself, and I can't find anything else on a ProQuest search either: of the just seven hits I get, four of them were accidental text matches in which the phrase "to catch a yeti" was used in an entirely unrelated context, and the three where it meant this film are all just TV or event calendar listings rather than substantive critical analysis. Bearcat (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bob Keen. This is admittedly best known for the Rifftrax riff, but there seems to be a good redirect target at Keen's article. Other than that, the coverage is just a bit too light for comfort. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just put a bit of work into this one. The film has a notable star (Meat Loaf) and was reviewed by Radio Times and TV Guide. I have expanded the article to include more details on its production, release, and reception, supported by sources. Ackatsis (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting the work into finding the sources and cleaning up the article; I didn't come across those sources before. Passes GNG now, in my opinion. Yeeno (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage exists, as found by Ackatsis. Wes sideman (talk) 12:52, 14 July 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.