Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material Success

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material Success

Material Success (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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (films) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Jesssemann (Creator, SPA, COI) with the following rationale "This is an internationally released film and there are only facts in this description.". I do not believe that is sufficient; the film needs to generate some non-local coverage to merit being in a encyclopedia (and this one doesn't seem to have much). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the article does cite several reviews. At least two are in Toronto-based publications, so arguably they only provide local coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not seeing notable coverage here. My own searches have turned up almost nothing. Rotten Tomatoes has zero critic reviews. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there have been edits made to the article in an attempt to further support the Wikipedia Guidelines. Further references and external links to support non-local coverage have been added also. Jesssemann (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the new references are non-local? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 27 October 2015 (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.