Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legs (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The result was nomination withdrawn. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legs (film)

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

Utterly unnoticed TV movie. Rotten Tomatoes has zero reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely unnoticed. Some articles from Google's (much less comprehensive than it used to be) newspaper archive: [1] (AP, carried by multiple papers in the archive); [2] (Eugene Register Guard "from Wire Service Reports"); [3] (a different AP story); [4] (brief preview); [5] (brief preview). --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep and allow improvement of this stub over time and through editorial effort. The article may have been itself ignored but neglect is not a valid deletion rationale (if asserted), and as Arxiloxos points out in polite contradiction to the nom's statement, this 1983 project did receive notice some 30 years ago. Rotten Tomatoes' failings do not set our notability standard and we do not expect any film to remain forever in the headlines. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Clarityfiend and Arxiloxos: The sorry stub that was first nominated is now a sourced start class. WP:NF is met and the project is itself improved by additional work on this article... but not by deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-and tons of older films wont have RT reviews. While its not the most known film, this seems to be able to keep. Wgolf (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination'. Looks like this one has "legs". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2014 (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.