Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Haunting in Salem
as receiving the attention of genre reviewers and, now that its out on DVD, is starting to receive attention and review from more mainstream sources, such as KTLA and Consumer Reports. It may never be earth-shattering, but it has coverage and is getting more. I again have a concern toward even |unitentional  when a new article was proposed for deletion 8 minutes after its creationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Haunting_in_Salem&action=historysubmit&diff=457549131&oldid=457547922 and just 4 minutes after an edit by its author.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Haunting_in_Salem&action=historysubmit&diff=457549131&oldid=457548593 An article being actively editied is not exactly an abandoned article, huh?  I admire NPP for their work in quelling the flood of inappropriate new articles but, and with respcts to both prodder Gaijin42 and nominator Eeekster, wouldn't a polite tag for concerns been more appropriate and just as effective than so quickly suggesting the "fix it or lose it" ash bin as the only option??  I do not think anyone realistically expects new articles to spring miraculously perfect onto these pages when created, and eletion Policy instructs that |we DO have other friendlier options than immediately proposing for deletion
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 08:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:AGF||WP:BITE||WP:D||WP:ATD (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)