Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Assault (2017 film)

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Assault (2017 film)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources thus does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some coverage such as a review from Nerdly and an article about principal photography ending from HorrorNews.net, both of which are usable to establish notability. However that's all I'm finding so far. There is other coverage, but it's almost entirely local, which isn't the best establisher of notability since local papers are likely to cover local people (present or former) and local productions. I'd need at least another review from a RS or more coverage of production from non-local sources to really make this a firm keep for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure we should use Nerdly as an indication of notability either. According to their About us page, anyone can submit a product for them to review - meaning any product no matter how notable could be reviewed by them and we don't have any indication of knowing. That with the fact that almost no other RS exists makes me wary. BOVINEBOY2008 10:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that's not much different from most outlets as most have some form of submission guide. It's not really a guarantee that they review everything or that every review will be positive, which are two of the things that would weaken a site's ability to be used as a RS. An argument in the site's favor as a RS is that it's been used as a reference in this book from Taylor & Francis, this one from Bloomsbury, and has managed to get directors of notable films in for interviews. It's not the strongest RS out there, but I'd consider it to be generally reliable as far as horror and pop culture is concerned. I wouldn't use it for political commentary or potential BLP claims, however. In any case, if they were accepting payment, reviewing everything under the sun, or had a history of only giving out puffy praise (coughcough*AICN*coughcough) then I'd be more skeptical of the site. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as article notability goes, Nerdly isn't so major of an outlet that a review from them would merit a keep on that basis alone. Not that I think that any outlet has that sort of power, mind you. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 18 February 2021 (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.