Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run Leia Run

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 delete. So Why 13:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Run Leia Run

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

I do not believe that this article is notable. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale taken from article talk page per request at WT:AFD. ~ GB fan 23:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the title is a pun on Run Lola Run. Film had a budget of $400, references appear to mostly be to advertising. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. It is great that today's tech and the interwebs allow fans to create these but that does not mean they merit an article on WikiP. There is zero sourcing to support any of the claims in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references not authoratitive. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to a line or two in Run Lola Run as a parody indicating of the pop culture reach of that film. bd2412 T 14:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Run Lola Run has inspired or been parodied by more notable media, including The Simpsons (Trilogy of Error) and Bon Jovi (It's My Life music video). I'm not sure that Run Leia Run would be more than trivial in the Run Lola Run article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Received a few awards and screenings and is mentioned in a source. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what source? There aren't any references for the article whatsoever. MarnetteD|Talk 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that the awards or screenings are important enough to meet WP:NFILM, when the examples given by that guideline are the Academy Awards and the Palme d'Or. The assertion of awards and screenings are uncited, and the main sources I can find on the film are its own website. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a brief mention of it here in this book published through Springer and here, in this book published by EDUFRN, which looks to be the publishing arm of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte. The EDUFRN source looks to be longer than a one sentence mention (meaning that it'd most likely be considered in-depth enough to be considered a notability giving source), so this should at least give justification of mentioning it at the Run Lola Run article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand how that follows. From the snippet view of that source, all I can see is a brief, trivial mention that Run Leia Run exists, and a nutshell summary of the plot. Unless it goes on to discuss Run Leia Run in more depth, I don't think it can do anything for the notability of Run Leia Run. My understanding is that multiple sources that discuss Run Leia Run nontrivially would be needed to keep the article. I think that Run Leia Run is unimportant to Run Lola Run and should not be added there. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2017 (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.