Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sci-Fighters

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) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fighters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found a link from Entertainment Weekly but nothing else. Needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• this looks like a reasonable review, and I'm seeing V met by sites like TVGuide, Amazon Prime, etc. It's clearly real, and apparently awful. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More name drops in an obituary of Piper, and an an article that seems like a perfect place for it to be covered... But name drops are all what I am seeing. It's apparently not so bad that it's fun to make fun of like Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Surf Nazis Must Die. What I'm seeing pretty much validates the before. I'd Merge it into Piper's article where it's already mentioned and linked, although that might end up looking more like a redirect because this appears to be one of Piper's many forgettable films. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Roddy Piper: Not enough coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article. ––FormalDude talk 06:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IMDb lists 9 reviews ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]), though they seem to mostly be blogs. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. EW is okay, IGN is reliable, and this is significant. Staying in Europe we have one not-so-long-and-significant German one, one not-so-long-and-significant Dutch one, the short TV Guide, but then again longer reviews from websites I'm not familiar with: this and this. A passing mention in a book. Geschichte (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm agree with Geschichte.Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw this nomination per WP:NEXIST since the film is mentioned in existing reliable sources such as Entertainment Weekly and IGN. The Film Creator (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2021 (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.