Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Park Is Mine (1986 film)

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Park Is Mine (1986 film)

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

I think this is borderline, but I'm coming down on the side of non-notable. I have added some sources, but it's not quite enough to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 8 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked in Google Books and found this and this right away. This seems like a case of where the film will not be well-covered online but will probably have coverage in print sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG. Found this and this as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I'm now convinced it goes over the threshold. Thank you for your help. Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:34, 9 February 2016 (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.