Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead fury

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 RESULT: Snow keep. Nominator withdrawing AfD, after MichaelQSchmidt did a stellar job of finding sources and, essentially, writing the article from scratch. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead fury

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

No explanation of notability, no sources. Film has 124 votes on IMDb. Does not appear to have had a wide release. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tim Pierce (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Meets WP:NF for its genre. A film need not have wide theatrical release to be found notable through its having significant coverage in independent sources considered reliable for sourcing their genre. I am troubled that the film was proposed for deletion within 30 minutes of its creation (and while it was being actively edited) and then sent to AFD 90 only minutes later. WHat ever happened to reasonable research into a topic, or consideration that Wikipedia is a work in progress andthat we do not have to be immediately perfect? Yes, the article that was proposed and then nominated was only one sentence,[1] but it was being actively edited by a new contributor[2] who was yes, warned that it was tagged and that it was sent to AFD, but who received no other assistance in the article's improvement. With respects, I wish to remind both the good faith tagger[3] and the good faith nominator[4] that through just a little work it was not at all difficult to quickly turn a 11 word stub into a (so far) ~~559~~ ~~805~~ 1052 word start class article to serve the project and its readers... without making Wikipedia unfriendly to a newcomer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider the film notable according to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films), I would appreciate it if you would be specific as to how. It doesn't appear to me that it meets any of these criteria, but I'm listening. With respect to your other points: I don't think there's anything inappropriate about nominating a one-sentence article for PROD, and frankly I'm surprised that it didn't get speedied. There are plenty of ways to draft a Wikipedia article that don't involve putting a one-sentence article directly in mainspace. This isn't about not biting the newbies. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think biting the newbs is a always a consideration even if unintentional, and while yes, there are plenty of aways to draft an article, no one suggested to the newb just what any of them might be... which is why I dropped a personal note on his page to suggest use of a userspace for future drafts.

As for the film being notable, when we look up the ladder to the topic meeting WP:GNG, it's a sound keeper. In its meeting WP:NF, we simply need look at NF's "General principles" which repeats acknowledement of the GNG in its stating "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Following that inital instruction are "atributes" to consider... not as mandates, but as encouragement to find sources. As the topic can be seen to meet the GNG, it need not have wide distribution or be historically notable or have won a major award or have been preserved in an archive or be taught in a film school. Those are simply "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist". They are not mandated criteria. And just as I have done, required sources can be found without these attributes being present. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet the good old "GNG test". Qrsdogg (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lousy B-horror films are accepted on here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
snow Keep I do not necessarily go by just the GNG, either for deletion or keeping (and I certainly don't go by votes on IMdB, one way or another.). But MQS seems to have done a remarkably good job in finding critical discussion of the film--it's model of what can be done if someone knows the subject area. And of course critical attention is the ideal way of showing notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.