" 

 == What exactly is your problem with King Kelly (film)? == 

 Apparently you weren't satisfied with my answer to why it shouldn't be speedied, since you just tagbombed it with ""fansite"", ""more footnotes"", ""recentism"", ""ref improve"", and ""unreliable sources"". Care to explain why? I'm removing them unless you can actually show a problem with the article. The article is written factually and neutrally, so ""fansite"" is not applicable. Things that need citing are cited inline, so ""more footnotes"" and ""ref improve"" aren't applicable. If you see something which you think needs an inline cite, feel free to add ""cite needed"". ""Recentism"" makes no sense: it's a film from November 2012, so all the reviews are from November 2012. And as for ""unreliable sources"", I fail to see how the New York Times, Film Journal International, and Slant Magazine are unreliable. Please reply at Talk:King Kelly (film).   ~✿~  "