Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reckless Disregard

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. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Disregard

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

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

The article is unsourced and it fails WP:NF. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Keep (see below) - mainly because there's basically nothing here. It's a stub that says "this exists [according to imdb]". I found a couple sources, but only one is really good: this writeup in the LA Times. Other than that there are plenty of the yearly movie guides which give brief synopses of movies released that year (from e.g. Blockbuster), this paragraph in People, and that's about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did some digging and found some coverage for the film, as well as a review from the NYT. The People paragraph is short, but I used that more to reference one of the two lawsuits that seemed to serve as inspiration for the piece. Rhododendrites, what do you think? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tokyogirl79: Ah. The NYT source is a big addition. Updated to keep based on that, but at least equally as much based on your improvements. To me, a stub that says "this exists [according to imdb]" is the same or worse than having no article. No reliable sources whatsoever, no claim to notability, no information aside from its existence -- just an impoverished mirror of Imdb. With no reliable sources and no substance, there's nothing to WP:PRESERVE, and nothing to be lost. People may say "so improve it", but while that's a reasonable response to 99.5% of "current version" arguments at AfD, if there's not actually anything of substance to work with, it's not just "improving" -- it's "actually creating the article". If I sound frustrated that it's not being deleted, know that that isn't the case. Having a real article about a notable subject is better than having no article or a non-article, so kudos to you for doing so, just as kudos would be in order for creating an article from scratch. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah, I totally understand. I've had times where I had the same frustration and wanted to just throw my hands up and walk away. Heck, there have been a few times where I have, although I try not to do that with AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF. Once again Tokyogirl79 shows the value of WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPROVE prior to offering an opinion. Being weak is not a valid reason to delete an improvable topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, plenty of independent, reliable coverage. For example, this film has been covered by LA times and the New York Times. Omni Flames (talk) 04:59, 13 July 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.