Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebelle
Passes  and . With respects to the nominator, "commercial release" does not neccessarily equate to notability and conversely, a lack of "commercial release" does not neccessarily equate to non-notability. Any article not using https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Rebelle%22&num=50#q=%22Rebelle%22%2C+Kim+Nguyen&hl=en&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=thYeT7KsAaSkiQK0_-TlCw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CAwQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=b4526f3f834bbece&biw=792&bih=424 available sources is a call for improvement, not deletion, as |topic notability is dependent upon sources being available, and NOT upon such sources being used in an article. What we do have is a completed film which is and has been receiving |coverage in multiple sources, and one set for its debut in less than a month. Sources exist for this topic... THAT's how we determine notability and improvability. The nominator's other worries are based upon non-mandated |"attributes" that are set to encourage searches for sources, and NOT upon |applicable |guideline or |policy. And with respects to the nominator's google-foo... sources were easily available to meet ... and had he looked beyond the IMDB|unreliable source upon which he based his erroneous argument that this completed film was not yet completed, he might not have nominated this in the first place
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NF||WP:GNG||WP:NRVE||WP:GNG||WP:OEN||WP:NF||WP:GNG||WP:V (Wikipedia:Notability)