Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assault of the Killer Bimbos

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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assault of the Killer Bimbos

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

Unremarkable movie. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF.. perhaps because of the silliness of the title. Heck, even Roger Ebert found in worth reviewing in Chicago Sun-Times.[1] And it is also nicely covered in such as The Day,[2] and Sydney Morning Herald,[3] and quite a few others. Yes, the current article is in rough shape... but (sorry DC) we do not toss notable film topics simply because they are in rough shape or if we think the film unremarkable... specially if due diligence shows the article meets the primary notability guideline and is thus improvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Update: What was first nominated for deletion (perhaps due its then poor format, style, and lack of use of available sources) has gone through a few minor and easy to do improvements... now looks better (and yes, more is possible). Might the nominator consider a withdrawal at this point? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been reviewed in multiple places, as indicated in the article, in this AfD, and on Rotten Tomatoes[4], and therefore meets WP:NFILM. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely! If Roger Ebert had reviewed it, it must be notable. But seriously, it definitely passes WP:GNG and the more specific WP:NFILM. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in multiple different reliable secondary sources independent of the article's subject. Also, hundreds of results in book search. — Cirt (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's certainly received enough coverage. Ducknish (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - per suggestion of MichaelQSchmidt, who has done a great job of fixing this one up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2013 (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.