Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gale Force (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gale Force

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tossing this here as a kind of test balloon. To my understanding, this fails all the criteria at WP:NFILM; in particular there's no substantial and reliable coverage. - Depending on what people more experienced with film criteria think, there seems to be at least half a dozen articles about films by this director (Jim Wynorski) that are at the same level, and I'd either leave them alone or string them up depending on the outcome.

(I see this was earlier closed as redirect and an editor tried to fix it up afterwards, but that doesn't seem to have done anything for the referencing.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep As an article, not a redirect page. This what I wrote in the talk page I beleive I make a good case:

I accidentally restored this page. However, it was very confusing to me as a reader, that why when I clicked on the title of the film was I reading the bio of the director.

For that I do think that it is not proper for Gale Force being a redirect toward the page of the cult director Jim Wynorski. If in one's bio it is important to mention to mention the film Gale Force due to the importance its director of its cast. I would suggest one to write: Gale Force directed by Jim Wynorski, co-starring so and so on.

I prefer keeping the article, however I prefer deletion over keeping it as redirect.

Currently, it is much more worth as reader to stumble on page about Gale Force than to be confused with Wynorski's bio. I saw the film and understand it is a simple direct to video action film. However there is sufficient references out there to confirm the film exist, to have a full synopsis, cast list, release, and even an award section. From which I took the initiative of updating from earlier versions.

The film has a surprisingly famous cast,Treat Williams, Michael Dudikoff, Curtis Armstrong, Susan Walters, Tim Thomerson, Marcia Strassman, and many more, which will keep a Wiki reader going, and clicking away.

Now the Gale Force space exist. Hence I suggest keeping it, over having a page where it is written that it's been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7BF5:DB00:882F:FE11:A004:FC1D (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gale Force is over all a standard direct to DVD film, however it has a nice collaboration people, and was without being an overly important film it was properly released. Gale Force could have a nice standard movie page, with over 5 annotation to prove it exist, that could make for a good read, and allows the reader to click away at interesting names.

NOTE: I did all the mentioned in the last paragraph. Gale Force is now a standard article about a random B-movie with a well known cast.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been reviewed by South Florida Sun Sentinel and also film critic.com which is used as a professional critic at rotten tomatoes which makes it a reliable source according to WikiFilm Project. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:47, 30 January 2018 (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.