Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and My Mates vs the Zombie Apocalypse

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 keep. Consensus is that the film meets NF & GNG, Closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Mates vs the Zombie Apocalypse[edit]

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

IMO this fails WP:NFILMS. There are no reviews in the press. The film has been selected at Sitges but the selection is quite long (so I do not feel that it is selective enough). Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF.[1] An inexperienced author's not using available reliable sources and a nominator's failure in not finding them does not mean "TOO SOON". For instance, the in-depth article in Sydney Morning Herald was really quite decent, and there are many more. And because the nominated format was sketchy, I have begun improvements per MOS:FILM... really quite easy to fix something perceived as weak. The flaw in nominating a new article 90 minutes after it was contributed and without BEFORE might make such action appear a bit bitey to the new contributor. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and a few more: Dread Central, Broadway World, Bloody-Disgusting, Joblo, IGN (Spanish), Ecran Large (French), Canberra Times, and more... Tigraan?? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Times: passing mention.

Dread Central, Broadway World, and Ecran Large, Joblo, etc.: I actually saw the Broadway world one while doing my WP:BEFORE, and the others are similar. I dismissed it on the basis that even if BW is a reliable source (of which I was not sure at the time), that was a short article (film, date of release, summary plot, cast and director) about a film that was not out yet and fell under WP:ROUTINE. Yes, that is many articles, but the guys behind the film are somewhat known for other stuff (but WP:NOTINHERITED) and it is easy to imagine that they have press access that the average independent film-maker does not have; and frankly, all of those look like close paraphrases of the same press release falling under the "capsule review" clause of WP:NFSOURCES.

What really is a red flag to me is that I could not find any critic posterior to the release, and the above are not really "reviews" in the meaning of "critical commentary of the film".

Now, the Sydney Morning Herald which I missed somehow is above the pack. The same argument applies to some extent but nonetheless it is a devoted article in the main press and more than a capsule review. I could see a claim under WP:GNG (even if critics ignored the film, its creation process - youtube stars on a crowdfunded budget, etc. - can be notable); but really, one single source with reasonable coverage is not enough in my eyes.

Note: I could not see the Spanish one at es.ign.com, but judging by the URL it is yet another "here is the trailer" article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as a source address the film directly and is not a merely trivial mention, we have WP:SIGCOV. And with WP:SUBSTANTIAL not being a guideline requirement, I will stick with my comment that WP:GNG is met and so thus is W:NF. Reviews (though nice) are not a requirement for a film only now being released to DVD... a topic being addressed directly (even if briefly) is. And with the upcoming DVD release, more is reasonable to anticipate. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As written above, I do not see enough detail in the sources cited above (except the SMH) to pass WP:NFSOURCES. I highly doubt that the consensus behind GNG is that any nonempty article on any topic counts towards GNG as soon as there is the signature of a usually respected source. Said otherwise, I say that context matters to evaluate fiability, and those sources look like paraphrase of a press release because of their lack of significant content. More content would indicate more (some?) research on the topic, hence better fiability.

Just in the interest of the discussion: do you agree that the sources are "press releases in disguise", i.e. look like close paraphrase of a PR, even if we obviously cannot tell with certainty how they were made?

"...reasonable to anticipate..." is WP:CRYSTAL. My point on reviews was that being covered more before than after the release is a red flag, not that reviews are necessary. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for your negativity, but being myself in film and knowing how many projects do not get coverage until after a widespread DVD release, my stating "...reasonable to anticipate..." such coverage is indeed reasonable from my perspective, BUT NOT my reason for my initial keep. And too, as the film was produced under a different title, searches for earlier coverage must be expanded under different parameters, allowing us to find such as .ZA Monthly City News ABC News Trov IF and others addressing the topic of production and planning directly and in various levels of detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The searches not chosen:

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

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

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

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

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

Just takes looking.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As MQS has saved yet another article from deletion, by putting up many good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the sources put forward above for both names of the film showing that it is of interest in the media and that WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2016 (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.