Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THINGS (1989)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Guess I'm splitting the baby. THINGS has improved markedly, and is notable. Mr. Gillis, however, does not appear to make the mark, and litttle of the "keep" discussion here tried to make the case that he does. Delete Barry J. Gillis. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THINGS (1989)

[edit]
THINGS (1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki! There are other wikis out there. Wikipedia is just one of them.

Non-notable movie. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Barry J. Gillis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
  • Delete both. I wonder who the author might be. The film is not notable even for how terrible it is and it doesn't seem to have the large fan base claimed in the article as the only possible reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mr. Gillis sounds like a creative and interesting fellow but he has not yet achieved notability and Wikipedia is not the proper route to fame. Drawn Some (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barry J. Gillis has been on radio shows, and national televison, he is the author of 4 books of poetry, and a novel as well. THINGS (1989) has been featured in THEY CAME FROM WITHIN, A History of the Canadian Horror Cinema, and stars porn star Amber Lynn. The movie is reviewed extensively on the internet on various sites, and has played at the South African Horror Festival. It has been featured in magazines such as Rue Morgue, and various other magazines. The movie is also considered a classic movie as it is 20 years old. It is featured on the Internet Movie Data Base, (IMBD) and has a worldwide following. Just because you never heard of the film, or because you think the film is small, has no bearing on whether the article should be included on WIKI.
Wiki is an encyclopedia about truth, and has nothing to do with trying to gain anyone fame as the other author who wants this deleted suggests.
Amber Lynn was one of the biggest stars of the 1980's in the porn industry, if not the biggest female porn star, and this makes the movie notable as well.
It is obvious from the person who has expressed their desire to have THINGS 1989 deleted that he is not a fan of the movie, but if you read the message closely, this person has obviously seen the movie.
There is nothing in the article on THINGS (1989) stating that it has a massive fan base, it states that it has a cult following, and if you look up the meaning of cult following on wiki, you will see what it means.
The person who wrote to have THINGS (1989) deleted from WIKI is bias in their message thereof, and what this person writes should have no bearing on a movie that has been released in 1989 on VHS, and then again last year on DVD.
One may not like PLAN 9 FROM OUTTER SPACE by Ed Wood, however, it is still a part of filmmaking history.
THINGS (1989) should not be deleted because of someones bias, and subjective thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryjedmonton (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — Barryjedmonton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I completely disagree that THINGS (1989) and Barry J. Gillis should be deleted from WIKI. Although I neither a fan of the movie nor a fan of Barry J. Gillis, both entries are notable in the scope of North American Cinema, and the outspoken Gillis, who I have had the opportunity of interviewing myself one time, also has an interview site on the net, and has interviewed the original director of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, Mr. Tobe Hooper (which by the way TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE was a favorite movie of Spielberg) for an upcoming documentary on low budget films. http://www.AFTERDARKINTERVIEWS. Like the man or hate him and his movie THINGS (1989), it cannot be denied that the man and the movie are notable. Just my two cents on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thank you for your response Drawn Some. I find myself defending inclusion of a movie that I am not particularly fond of myself, but I believe what I am really defending is the history of film, which I happen to be a critic of myself, and this is the only reason that I am defending THINGS (1989), as it is not one of my favorite films, however it does deserve inclusion, and after I go over the requirements as you have kindly let me know about as I am very new to this, (although I have used wiki in my research many times), I would appreciate for the sake of the history of film that you would change your mind to have the movie included as well as Mr. Gillis because it seems to me that this is only the right thing to do, especially after I have looked over the notability requirements that you have directed me to look over.
I am not sure if you have the power to change your decision and I really do not have much of a clue as to how all of this works, however the film is notable. Like I say, I am not a big fan of the film, but the movie is notable, and it is wrong not to include the film in the wiki data base. It meets the minimum requirement of wiki requirements, and surpasses the requirements as well. So where someone is saying that it is not notable, it is because in their own sphere they have never heard or may not know much about the film, and this is no reason to be bias against a film.
1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
THINGS has been reviewed by many movie critics, and it has been featured in alot of horror and low budget movie books that I collect and read. There is more about the movie on IMBD.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183881/ and the trailer is on you tube as well as other info on the movie.
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
  • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
There is two pages devoted to the movie in the book I have here THEY CAME FROM WITHIN, A History of Canadian Horror Cinema, where it is sited as the WORST CANADIAN MOVIE EVER MADE. Here are just a few sites that I found. http://www.canuxploitation.com/review/things.html http://www.oh-the-horror.com/page.php?id=370 (http://www.dansemacabre.pl/teksty/43.html Interview in Polish, from some magazine in Poland with Barry J. Gillis, and Andrew Jordan) There was a review of the DVD in Rue Morgue Magazine last year that I know of.
  • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[3] I know the film has been reviewed in many horror magazines, and throughout the internet as well.
  • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was originally released to the North American Market in 1989 on VHS, and was re-released on DVD, including a reunion of cast and crew, and behind the scenes of Amber Lynn.
This is 20 years after its initial release.
THINGS (1989) Screened at the SOUTH AFRICAN HORROR FESTIVAL LAST YEAR, and this is almost 20 years after its release. http://shadowrealminc.com/horrorfest/2008horrorfest.htm
  • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]

I know it has not recieved any awards, although it is often sited as the worst movie ever made and released. It's worse than Plan 9 from outter space.

4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[5] When I interviewed Gillis about 8 years ago he told me that the movie was in the National moving Archives in Canada.
5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
From what I see, the film does meet the requirements, and I have only listed a few references that I personally know about the film.
As a critic of film, and especially horror films, I will tell you without a doubt that THINGS (1989) does deserve inclusion on wiki, and I would hope that for the sake of film history, and for the sake that it does meet and exceed the minimu requirements that it is included.
Geez, I cannot believe that I have spent this much time defending a feature film that is not one of my favorite films, although for alot of people it is their favorite movie. I meet people who enjoy and love the film all of the time.
Here's the official site for the movie as well. http://www.THINGS1989.com
I think I have to go and pop a few Aspirins after defending a movie that is no where near the top of my list,lol, although it does deserve inclusion. It's a wonder that it has not been included on wiki in the past.
I also would like to thank you again Drawn Some for replying to my message and letting me know the requirements. I have a few movies in mind that are not on wiki right now, and I will include them in the future.
Thanks Again, and I would hope that you would actually vouch for the inclusion of the movie, THINGS (1989)
How does this all work Drawn Some?
Let's say that I put a movie up on wiki for inclusion that i notice is not in the data base, and then someone says it should be deleted, and then there is a discussion,etc,etc. Who makes the final call on these kinds of matters?
In any event, thanks again, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Having a website, being reviewed, being screened as a film festival and being used on film school course do not meet the bar for notability. Having a porn actress star in the film is not notable. Likewise writing a bio and filling it with bluelinks to notable people and events does not make that person notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you to say that this is so???? You should go over the guidelines yourself for inclusion because THINGS (1989) not only meets the guidelines, it exceeds the minimum requirements. So you should do your homework Darrenhusted before you type the nonsense that you just typed. There are films on Wiki that don't even deserve to be their based upon the guidelines that I have read. THINGS (1989) meets the guidelines.

What is Wiki anyway??? A place where somebody has to keep fighting for an entry until everyone gives up and just lets it be included???

Is this how it works???? I'm starting to think this is how it works, and you are wrong Darrehusted, it meets the guidelines, and exceeds them. As I say, go and do your homework BIGBOY... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Americanmoviecritic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, User:Americanmoviecritic removed User:Darrenhusted's delete vote with this edit here. I have restored the previous version. Matt Deres (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to remove Darrenhusted request for deletion, I am new to Wiki, and I apologize for this action.

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

You're telling me that the INTERNET MOVIE DATA BASE is not a reliable resource????

Hard to read??? What's your level of education, grade 2???

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Americanmoviecritic[reply]

Knock it off, now. Insulting people during an AfD is a sure-fire way of getting blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a link to THE ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARDS classification ratings is not reliable either, and although their is not a link for it, THINGS was reviewed in Variety many years ago.

I think that alot of you have nothing better to do with your lives than to make other people feel miserable.

There is enough reliable resources for the movie THINGS (1989), alot of you are just biased towards horror movies, that is quite evident to see.

There is no way that you checked all of the links and resources to make such a comment spaceman. I think your brain is in outter space...

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

I recieved your warning, but don't you think other people should be warned for their insults? I find it insulting that Spaceman says that none of the sources are reliable. This is very insulting especially when I know as a fact that certain resources such as imbd do not list anything without a movie being reviewed in the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and other various sources. imbd has strict guidelines for what they include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a world of difference between someone saying that IMDb isn't a reliable source (which it isn't at times) and saying that someone has the education of a second-grader. The fact that you can't distinguish between the two is unfortunate, but regardless, you need to knock off the personal attacks or find somewhere else to spend your time. This is not negotiable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but willing to be convinced otherwise - if enough convincing evidence is placed on the table. There are no references given for any of the statements in the Barry Gillis article, but the novel does appear to exist.It does not appear to be notable, however, as so far as I can find it is self-published. It appears to have been published through lulu.com (a self-publishing site) but is not available there now. It seems to be available elsewhere as a .pdf download. I would assume the poetry is also self-published. What appear to be the titles are rather confusing. (Possibly I am missing something there - I've just emerged from a discussion of amendments to amendments to proposals.) As to the film, I quote: "Up until August 22nd, 2008, the only way to see Things was on VHS if you could even find a copy. Left Field Productions in association with Cinema Sewer released a limited edition 19 and a 1/2 year anniversary edition DVD (available from the film's official website)." http://www.oh-the-horror.com/page.php?id=390 That doesn't suggest a very wide distribution (albeit wider than that of the filming I have been involved with...). The article I quoted does mention a cult following - but it only takes three to form a cult. I would echo Evula's comments, and add that histrionics don't count for much here - not as far as positive outcomes are concerned. Evidence and rational discussion do. Peridon (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep despite the strong case being made by User:Americanmoviecritic to delete. The movie is verifiable and the reviews linked to do appear to be legitimate, borderline reliable sources. The film has been reviewed and shown at film festivals. This is enough to squeak by WP:NF. Pburka (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem there will be no more personal attacks. I am actually making a strong case to keep the movie in the data base, and NOT TO DELETE the movie. I am relatively new here, and I'm just starting to get the signature thing down, so this is why you may have mixed up my point of view. I totally disagree with what you are saying about the imdb EVula. The imdb is, and has always been the most reliable source of information concerning the movies that have been produced and made. I would challenge you to make a list of movies that imbd has on their site that are not real movies EVula. In fact, I will check in here on a constant basis just to see if you can even list one feature length film that is listed on the imdb that is not a real movie, or a movie worth noting.

Also, this subject is very subjective, and a biased one at that. I have searched the wiki data base under low budget films, b-movies, exploitation films,etc,etc. There are movies on Wiki right now that are included in the data base that do not have the same notority and following as THINGS. You may not know much about this film, but I will tell you that this movie is well known in the exploitation and horror world, and it did enjoy a main stream release when it was released on VHS. It was in every blockbuster video store that I ever walked into. You may not have noticed it if you were in the romance section of your local video store. Do me a favour and Check out the films of Nick Zedd. Not one of his movies has enjoyed a release as wide as THINGS, and yet he and his movies are on Wiki. Why? Because, Exploitation and horror films serve a purpose in our world. (Just an example) But, check it out.--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

  • Comment Americanmoviecritic, there are a couple things going on here. First of all, IMdB is not always reliable - although they try their best, they're still dependent on user updates and inaccurate or outdated information, movies that will never be made, etc. do make their way into the database. Second, the article for the movie on IMdB only confirms that the film exists, which is certainly not the issue here. I'm sure this is a suitably horrible movie, as you contend, but unless critical discussion or recognition can be found for it it's difficult to argue that it's really notable. WP:NOTE is the guideline you want to go by in this case. I encourage you to spend some time finding sources to flesh out the article. Kate (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both and send to WP:CLEANUP as meeting inclusion criteria of WP:GNG which instruct "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and per the inclusion criteria of WP:NF as "historically notable" per "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" and "given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release" (seems quite clear). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"WOW", I must say you are quite the PROFESSIONAL here at Wiki, and I will strive to see how you have done the references and have added resources using HTML,etc,etc. I am quite impressed with the way you have rescued an article that was earlier not up to par, to an article that truly deserves to be in the Wiki encyclopedia. I will follow all of your advice as there are other topics, as well as movies that are not in the data base as of yet, and I am beyond impressed with what you have done. Everything you are saying makes sense, and I can understand fully now why Wiki is the great resource that it is, and I can fully see why it was up for deletion before. Again, you have taken a page and made it so Wiki friendly that I am astonished beyond reason. I will follow your rules down to a "T" in the future, and will work on articles in the sandbox first before putting them live on Wiki. I would like to someday be a true Wikipedian, as I believe that this is the best resource in the world. I also see what you mean by making things into references because the other way it looks like someone is trying to sell or promote something, which was not my intent when I was adding the resources, but that was the way that it came off. The way that you added resources, and the various sections that you created and everything else that you did will be a perfect bluprint for when I add other movies to the resource, as well as other articles that have nothing to do with movies. I notice that sometimes when you search for something on Wiki, there is nothing on the subject under that name, so a redirect can be done, or an entire new article can be created. I think that this is one of the most fulfilling experiences I've ever had, to feel a part of something, and to create resources and knowledge bases for the world to use. I noticed for the initials J.F.K the other day that nothing came up, so I made a redirect to the John F. Kennedy page. Even making an addition as small as that felt really good. I am in awe with Wiki, and I see why so many people volunteer their time to help out in such a great human undertaking. I have noticed that some people specialize in certain subjects... For instance a person who really likes wrestling, or cars, or any other subject under the sun, will specialize in that endevour, and because of their love for the subject, they are learning themselves as well as making Wiki the best resource on earth. When looking up any subject on the internet, I always use Wiki as my first resource before anything else. Anyway, this has been a great experience so far, even though in the begining I was very leary when people were "attacking" a few of the articles I was working on. However, and as I said before, I understand why they were "attacking" the articles. For instance the Rue Morgue Festival of Fear is the biggest horror convention in Canada, and people were saying to delete it, yet the World horror convention is listed on Wiki, (held in the U.S.A, and Canada on an alternating basis) and it is a much smaller gathering of people. In any event, I fully understand now how things are done here on Wiki, and I'm probably not the first person who has had such a rude awakening,lol,lol. I'm sure even the greatest Wiki Pedians have had similar experiences when they first came here to contribute. I really appreciate your advice, your understanding, and your dedication to Wiki... As I said before, it's people like you Micheal, that make the world a great place...

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

I agree that the imdb is not always reliable as far as every single fact is concerned. However, every movie listed on the imdb is a real movie, unless someone can point out to me otherwise. I have yet to see a movie listed on imdb that was not real. I will challenge anybody out there to give me the link to a title listed on imdb that is not a real feature film or movie. Mistakes can happen, and human error is real. And again, I wouldn't believe that the imdb should be used as an only source by Wikipedians, and sometimes there facts are wrong on a movie, but again, I have never seen a movie listed there that wasn't a real movie... --Americanmoviecritic (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

[1], [2] Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
?? With respects, I am amazed that you're using a blog to source something negative about IMDB, as even they themselves admit to a small error factor and its suprising small when considering the size of their database. They have due process as do all such institutions. Heck, even the New York Times admits to their own error factor. It happens. But it is not pandemic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that they never made mistakes, and the Segal movie that was cancelled... imdb does have a section where movies in production can be listed. Again, I never said that they could not make mistakes, which they do. But the mistakes are usually with facts of a movie that is a REAL MOVIE.

Can someone help me out with something on this page???

I was trying to add an additional FURTHER READING reference, and I messed up and in the references their is a "Cite" mistake, and I still have to learn how to properly put in references. Anyway, could someone help me by fixing the reference that says DANSE MACABRE. Currently there is writing in red there.

In The ADDITIONAL READING area I was trying to add this as I have this book and their is a review of THINGS there by Micheal J. Weldon. When I went to add it for ADDITIONAL READING I screwed up somehow. I'm going to have to really practice how to add refernces by practicing in the sandbox.Psychotronic Video Guide to Film review of THINGS

Anyway, for one of you Wikipedain Pros, it would only take you a few seconds to correct where the reference for Danse Macabre is. You will see the mistake it is in red, and I cannot figure it out.

Thanks

Americanmoviecritic--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb is "famous" for having some inaccuracies, and THE UNDER SIEGE 3 listing that was there, and is now unlisted, would have been listed at the time as being in production. On imdb PRO, there are also movie listed that are only in the development stage or only have a treatment written, and they do say that a page will be taken down if the production is cancelled.

The challenge I am talking about... Is the challenge to find a movie listed on imdb that is not a real movie, that is the challenge. (not one in production, or one that has been cancelled that they had listed such as UNDER SEIGE 3, as I am quite positive that UNDER SEIGE 3 would have been listed as being in production at imbd.

I'm challenging someone to find a movie that is currently listed there that never existed in the first place, or is not a real movie. If someone can prove me otherwise, I will stand to be corrected. My point is... Is there inacuracies there??? YES Do they make mistakes? YES But, I don't know of any case where they have listed a movie that was not a real movie. Movies in production do not count, and they do make it clear on imdb PRO that a movie in development or in production will be deleted if it falls through. They also very rarely let just anybody put up something in development or in production unless it is a big name star or studio, as was the case with UNDER SEIGE 3.

Again, I won't deny that imdb makes mistakes, and does list annacuracies at times, however, they do have an option where people can change mistakes, or names,etc, by contacting them. I don't think they claim to be perfect, and I'm sure nobody that compiles tonnes of information can claim to be perfect, but they do try alot harder then some of you here give them credit for. That's basically what I am saying.

If someone can prove me wrong and find me a movie on imdb that is a fake movie, I WILL STAND TO BE CORRECTED...

In that regard, the imdb is a great resource for Wikipedians, for pure 100% facts, I'm not so sure about that, and I would agree that there are innacuracies, but then again, I am sure there are inacuracies on Wikipedia, as much as everyone tries there best to make everything as accurate as possible.

Is Wikipedia more accurate then imbd when it comes to getting the facts right and checking references,etc,etc, of course Wikipedia is better at this and has a far better track record than imdb, but we are all only human, and mistakes, and inaccuracies do occur...

Americanmoviecritic--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been monitoring this debate and at first I thought that this entry should be deleted myself, however, I have noticed that Micheal has rescued the page, and has done a fine job, and I am all for having this page included in Wiki... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexxxx (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • With respects, single purpose accounts that come on simply to make an opinion and then are heard from no more can do more harm to a discussion than good. I am happy to have improved the article, but this discussion is not a "vote" and a closing administrator will decide if the concerns of the nominator have been addressed or if they have not, and base his/her decision upon policy, giudeline, and whether the article now merits inclusion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you for your help in fixing an article I started but in all honesty, as great as this site is, and as much as I like it, I'm going to close up my account here. The nominator can do what ever they want with the entry, I honestly don't care if it is deleted. I have nothing to lose or gain other than the time I spent putting in on the article. But from wanting to learn to be a Wikipedian and contribute to more articles,etc,etc, and create more articles especially about movies that are not included on Wikipedia at the present time..., and help out and volunteer my time,etc, in the end it sounds like I wasted my time. This movie along with many others that are not listed here meets, and exceeds all of the requirements, but I'm begining to think the site is run by Communists as oppossed to Democratics,lol,lol.

Who knows I may have a change of heart in the near future, but now I'm being accussed of SOCK PUPPETRY, hahhahaha.

Like I said, the article can be deleted for all I care even though it should be included, and is a history of filmmaking and wouldn't be included in various books and reviewed everywhere if it wasn't important. But, I guess the nominator will make that decision. As I said in my other comment. I'm outta here for good. I may have a change of heart, but the experience can leave someone bitter, as well as it can make them feel good, and I don't like to have bitter feelings.

P.S, there's about 9 feature films that I came up with on a short list that are not included on Wikipedia, but maybe someone else will MAGICALLY write an article about those films. I know I won't be trying to contribute any time soon.

Take Care ALL,

Americanmoviecritic--68.148.2.120 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Obviously this article has been significantly expanded since the deletion discussion began, and there are a number of sources provided to establish notability. However, I am not convinced that the sources are reliable or notable enough themselves, and I have to admit that as I was on the fence about whether to endorse keeping or deleting the article the arguments made by Americanmoviecritic and Barryjedmonton convinced me to go with deletion, because their arguments seem to trivialize whatever limited merits the article might have. -- Atamachat 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be more specific, the requirements at WP:NF have already been discussed and Barryjedmonton has provided a very weak argument that the film passes. If anything the sources provided and arguments given confirm just how limited the notability for this film is, that only a small subset of people have paid attention to it. -- Atamachat 17:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak arguments? Its a pity that he became foucused on defending the wrong portions of his many refutations, but it is clear that inclusion requirements have been met, as a closer will note.
And with respects, I looked all over Wikipedia and I could not any parts of WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NF that state that horror genre films are not notable because they only appeal to a niche group of people. Nor did I find any portion of guideline that states that notability for a few hundred thousand or a few million does not count as much as notability for a few hundred million.
However, I did find that WP:RS instructs reliable sources are from authors "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and "How reliable a source is depends on context". Guideline does not mandate that Wall Street Journal or Forbes review independent horror films, nor does it mandate that Film Threat, Fangoria, or Rue Morgue report on Barrack Obama. Horror genre experts reporting on a horror-genre subject quite specifically follow guideline. And in case it was lost above...
  1. In WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NF "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"... which the subject of the article has, in multiple in-depth articles and reviews in genre specific sources.
  2. WP:NF "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:"
  1. "...at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release"... which the article has, multiple times, and in depth. Definitely not trivial.
  2. "...deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics... or movie professionals... at least five years after the film's release" Almost 20 yeqars after its release, genre-specific experts note it leads or should lead the list of films "so bad its good". Wow. Notable for being a total stinkard. Still, it is according to guideline.
  3. "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." This one is blatantly obvious. The film has been re-released 19 years after initial release AND screened at a major genre-specific festival 19 years after release. A double-header
Guideline instructs only one of these "historical" attributes" need apply to show notability. Again, it seems quite clear that the film meets the required inclusion criteria of WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NF. As for Barry, I am still on the fence. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first criteria... The quality of sources are what matter, not the quantity. A couple of dozen articles from non-notable sources don't matter, but a few articles from a major publication do matter. For the second criteria, I don't see a "broad survey" of film critics. That's the sticking point for that requirement, the criticism isn't from a broad spectrum, only a particular subset. And for the last point, the "release" was very limited, and I'm not at all impressed with the "Festival of Fear". Others have made all of these points already, and I am sure a closer will note that as well. -- Atamachat 17:31, 9 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/THINGS_(1989)&oldid=1069628674"