Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snakes on a Train

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, since it's reviewed by reliable sources like Variety magazine and NY Times, satisfies WP:N.--Alasdair 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snakes on a Train

Snakes on a Train (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable movie spinoff, barely reviewed, only notability is a derisive campy review. minimal sources. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom ForeverDEAD 01:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Derisive or not, a review is still a review. I've also found a 1,148-word article from the Toledo Blade which should count towards notability (Christopher Borrelli. "Mastering the art of the knockoff: Direct-to-video 'Snakes' project resembles wide-release feature". 17 August 2006. E14. Available at Newsbank). I'd be surprised if Fangoria or a similar magazine didn't review it at some point. Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure why it took this long to be put up for review if these are the reasons why, there is info on it, AND it is notable. Other than that my reasons are the reasons mentioned above by Zagalejo.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A quintessential example of the mockbuster phenomenon, as cited in an article in last Sunday's edition of The New York Times Magazine. Alansohn 06:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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.