Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomie: Re-birth

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. Thanks MichaelQSchmidt for taking care of the article. (Non-admin closure)Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomie: Re-birth

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

have Google searched and this cannot be established as notable, apart from a review by DVD Talk (which reviews thousands of unknown horror films) which I doubt makes it notable LF (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tomie (film series). I found only two reviews for this film, although there might be more in the Japanese language, if anyone fluent can do a check for me. While the film series is notable, this individual entry just doesn't seem to have that individual notability needed for an article all to itself. I do think that there'd be enough searches to warrant this being a redirect to the article about the film series, though. I'll see what I can manage with Google translate, but offhand I think this would be best off as a redirect and any sources used to flesh out various sections of the film series article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue improvements... per meeting WP:NF per WP:NRVE. Many genre sources available,[1][2] [3] among which are such as Film Threat and DVD Talk which, contrary to the nom's opinion, are emminently suitable for sourcing horror genre films. While yes, the stub as first nominated, did not offer much, that was then... and the former stub has proven to be improvable through use of English-language sources (nice for a Japanese film). We generally do not delete or redirect stubs on notable topics if it is shown the stub can be expanded and improved over time and through regular editing. And, as User:Tokyogirl79 has indicated, Japanese sources are likely available (and would be quite suitable) for additional improvemants. Minimal notability in English, and perhaps more notable to Japan, is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep per sources found by Schmidt. I didn't see those when I was searching, but that's what I get for trying to search and do homework at the same time. Great job!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 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.