Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Abductors (1972 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 keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Abductors (1972 film)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Movie fails to meet General Notability Guideline, No award or nominations has the movie receive. Also note should be taken that IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability.The only source for this movie is https://www.nytimes.com/1972/01/29/archives/the-screenthe-abductors-begins-run-at-the-demille.html. No other source can be found on Google. Meligirl5 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Theatre. Meligirl5 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheri Caffaro. Added things.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your valid point for your vote. You just said keep and see also to an actress who isn’t also notable. I see your contribution to this movie article but it still doesn’t clear the point why it was nominated for an AFD. You just copied the statement from the only news I pointed out and make that a “About” of the movie. I really don’t know what you have been doing on AFD discussion but after reading this I felt Liz is right.--Meligirl5 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing: I just copied the statement from the only news (you) pointed out and make that a “About” of the movie....not sure I understand everything you say but ...really? That NYT article was added yesterday (23:30 GMT) to the article about the actress....by me.....as you evidently know since you commented on that edit. But you're welcome. As for the rest, no comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Meligirl5 (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article now has reviews from The New York Times and The Baltimore Sun. Toughpigs (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore Sun is a dead link affter clicking on it. It doesn’t show anything. --Meligirl5 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meligirl5 I've fixed the Baltimore Sun link. Skynxnex (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great. Meligirl5 (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't added these to the article since I'm not 100% sure how to integrate them and there's enough for a keep, but Sight and Sound had a one paragraph review 10 picks from the grindhouse (paywalled but wiki library can see it) and Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership (looks like that a wire service-y thing) has a couple sentence review of it for the DVD release The Abductors (paywalled as well). Skynxnex (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skynxnex, I can't see these articles, but if you add the author name, date of publication, title and url, ping me, summarizing what the ref says about the film, and I'll happily review your links, add the info and help with formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers I think I added the main bit for the DVD release (other than maybe this bit but feels undue "If you thought Lord of the Rings was the ultimate film trilogy, you evidently haven't heard of the three early '70s films ".) Searching a bit i found that the Sight and Sound article is actually publicly available at http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/49375 and the full ref to the magazine if you choose to use that instead of the bfi site info is "10 picks from the grindhouse", London https://www.proquest.com/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/40577/Sight+and+Sound/02007Y06Y01$23Jun+2007$3b++Vol.+17+$286$29/17/6?accountid=196403 Vol. 17, Iss. 6, (Jun 2007): 25-27. Skynxnex (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film was reviewed by the New York Times and made over $2 million at the box office. Britfilm (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the existing reviews such as NY Times.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the reviews section, sourcing is good. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of press coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2024 (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.