Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun in Balloon Land

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Fun in Balloon Land

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Fun in Balloon Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a non-notable film. Almost all of the current refs are trivial, this is RS but a trivial plot guide, whereas this book also covers this in one paragraph, and is non-SIGCOV with an iffy publisher. Other refs are either databases or obviously non-RS blogs. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, and should be deleted. VickKiang 04:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - The Spinegrinder book is the closest I could find to an actual review, and it is still pretty short. The remainder of the sources included in the article (that aren't just from unmistakably non-reliable sources) are just very brief amounts of coverage or mentions, largely in relation to it having been on Rifftrax. I was unable to find any actual significant coverage upon searches, though if anyone manages to dig up any old contemporary reviews from newspapers at the time, please ping me to reassess my recommendation. Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2022 (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.