Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Into the Spider's Web

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 delete. WP:SNOW as part of the Chaneyverse cleanup - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Chaney. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Spider's Web[edit]

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

No secondary coverage, fails WP:FILMNOT I have removed some non RS refs, and just can't find any coverage. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it also fails WP:GNG and is another in the list of WP:SELFPROMOTION items that have been discovered. MarnetteD|Talk 20:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not believe Chaney owns the Kentucky New Era or wrote the in-depth article about his film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's the one source that Schmidt gave above, but that's not enough to establish notability, especially given that it's a local source. All we have is the one source and a search brings up nothing else to establish notability. I think that at best this could be a redirect to the main article for Chaney, but I'd only recommend creating that after we've resolved the many issues with his article. I'm recommending deletion and then a creation of a redirect to deter recreation of the sock created/edited article. The long and short is that this is one of many articles created and edited by a small group of sockpuppets. Most, if not all, of the articles they've created have had some serious sourcing issues and some of them have deliberately misrepresented sourcing in order to make something seem more notable or to back up various claims. There's just too much doubt here for me to feel comfortable keeping this even if there were dozens of sources. At most the KNE source could be used to show notability for Chaney himself, but it's not enough for this to pass NFILM, especially given the overall concerns with the sock creations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. One local newspaper article that has a few production details isn't enough. The article can be recreated if there are further offline sources that cover it in detail. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per failure of verfiability and WP:GNG. Four sentences in Warren Chaney's small hometown newspaper, Kentucky New Era (circulation 7000) about an apparently at-that-time unreleased movie and sourced only to Chaney himself not only fails significant coverage criteria but doesn't appear to provide any independent verifiability. This article is just another creation by the blocked SPA who seeded Wikipedia with numerous promotional and dubious entries linked to Chaney. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CactusWriter. There's nothing reliable, and it has become increasingly apparent that the New Era hasn't conducted proper reporting with respect to anything by Chaney. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:13, 12 December 2015 (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.