Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gladiator (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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gladiator (1986 film)[edit]

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

What happens when you get a notable director and a notable cast, but the film goes direct-to-video? Apparently, the critics avoid it like the plague, and it languishes in obscurity for the next 25 years. I've tried to rescue this article, but there are no reliable sources to establish notability. As an Abel Ferrara fan, I'd appreciate it someone can prove me wrong on this, but it looks thoroughly non-notable, and it fails WP:NFILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable cast and crew, got a full-length review in The Evening Independent[1], is discussed in great detail in this book [2] and was reviewed in VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever [3]. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw those when I was searching Google. The Video Hound book is a trivial one-sentence plot synopsis that I discounted as establishing notability. The other book is more substantial, but it's only a few pages in a 200+ page book about Abel Ferrara's career. It's certainly not trivial, but it's not quite what I would call substantial, either; Driller Killer and Bad Lieutenant got more than ten times the coverage. This is a book primarily about his notable films, not his lesser known ones. This was not enough to establish notability for me, but maybe others will disagree. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep WP:NF is met. The sources provided by User:Taylor Trescott are compelling.[4][5][6] and notability is not temporary. The nominator could certainly have used the provided sources to "rescue" this article... but now it will be done by others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making this personal? I made a good faith effort to establish notability for this article, as I have successfully done for many other articles, but the sources I located did not satisfy me. If you think that my standards for notability are too high, then you're free to say so and to criticize me for that, but your last sentence was completely unnecessary. If you can't interact with me without being passive-aggressive, then perhaps you should simply stop interacting with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like MichaelQScmidt says MarioNovi (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Schmidt, WP:BEFORE failure. Cavarrone 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe this would be for the best; it seems as though I was wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2013 (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.