Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boogeyman (2010 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 delete. The "delete" opinions do not identify which sources they consider relevant for notability and do not address the criticism by others of the existing sources. Sandstein 16:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Boogeyman (2010 film)

[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)

Article is written by the director/producer User:Tech2012 [1] who seems to use Wikipedia as their primary source of marketing. Only independent sources here are capsule reviews. Fails WP:NFILM and is probably eligible for WP:G11 given the WP:PUFFERY. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. Spleodrach (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've cleaned the article up quite a bit and I did find some of the coverage mentioned. So far the only usable review I could find, however, was from HorrorNews.Net and I will say that most of the coverage as a whole are interviews, so any notability here is shaky. It'd be different if I could find that SFX coverage, since the magazine is pretty well thought of. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there is some coverage in reliable sources in the article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as per Atlantic306. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 16:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which sources pass WP:NFILM? Two of them are interviews, which are not secondary, one is explicitly labeled a "short" review, and independent.ie source is only a passing mention of the film and spends most of its time discussing the filmmaker. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:12, 29 October 2018 (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.