Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other Side (2014 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 Userfied to User:Niespodj/The Other Side (2014 film) due to future potential.-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side (2014 film)[edit]

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

Article about a film which only contains one Unreliable source. The article does not meet any sort of notability requirement including WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Searches are difficult as there seem to be several different films by the same name. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette but cannot find additional coverage from reliable sources. There are some reviews that exist, but they are not published by periodicals or notable websites. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wiki so I apologize if not using proper tags, etc. There are approximately two dozen legitimate reviews of the film. I did not post them on the page because I wanted to keep it 100% neutral and not show favoritism in selecting one review over another. Also, if the official website is visited (www.teamorchard.com) there are direct links on the front page to the film online on all major internet video on demand platforms, including Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, iTunes, and Google Play. I did not include these links in the movie's page because I did not want to commercialize it or use it for publicity. The film has also screened at a half dozen film festivals in 2015. There are films with the same title listed that have far less credentials and widescale availability, so I'm unsure why this particular film page is being targeted for deletion. Niespodj (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being available for distribution and having screened at festivals aren't things that would automatically give notability, although they do make it much easier for something to gain coverage. I'll try to find the reviews, but I'm concerned that these reviews might not be usable as reliable sources (WP:RS) and may be the unusable sources that Erik was talking about. Not all reviews are usable as reliable sources, so if something was covered in a self-published blog, those cannot be used. (However if the blog was included in a notable, reliable aggregate website like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes as a critic review, then it could be used.) Also, saying that other things exist (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) with less notability on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for inclusion, as there are many, many articles on here for films that really don't pass notability guidelines - they just haven't been detected yet. However all of that said, I will try to look for sources and see if I can find enough for the film to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Right now it's a little early for it to have an article, as the only true coverage we have is a press release from Dread Central and two articles from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. There are some blog reviews out there, but not in any places that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. However given that the film has just gone to VOD, it's possible that there will be some more reviews coming in the future, so I think it'd be a good idea to userfy the content. I'm willing to do that, since that would help counteract the concerns about a conflict of interest. Now if these reviews come up before the AfD closes, this will of course be a keep on my end. Niespodj, since you are involved with the film I'd like to suggest that you petition the following sites for reviews: Dread Central, HorrorNews.net, Bloody Disgusting, Fangoria, and Ain't It Cool News. AICN, Fangoria, and HN.N are all very good about reviewing indie horror films. Flickering Myth and We Got This Covered are also good places to look towards for soliciting reviews as well, since they're also good about reviewing indie films and both are considered to be RS on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts

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

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

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

distributor:(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)

Comment: Well... not a deletion, but an acceptable non-wiki'd "storage-for-work" is not the worst result. I believe however that a userfication would probably be very temporary indeed... considering the growing interest in zombie-themed productions, this being slated for wider release when it hits the satellite and cable networks in two weeks, and there being a reasonable resulting expectation that with such wider release we can expect it to then be covered in places other than decent sources of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (1), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (2), and Dread Central, or the less-than-perfect We Live Film, Horror Society, UK Horror Scene, Zombie Movie Database, Tom's Blog of Horror, Demons of Celluloid, and Little Blog of Horrors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what I figure - if more sources aren't available by the end of the AfD period, it's likely that they'll come about in the next few months with Halloween approaching. Outright deletion wouldn't really be my first impulse here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if no new sources pop up in 6 days, with wide release September 18, we probably will not have to wait for Halloween. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt, I had to remove the Dread Central bit from the reception section. The Dread Central article is a reprint of the press release for the most part and the bits that were added as a review were from the press release. You can tell because this was reprinted in this website and labeled as a press release. The portions about the cast's home bases looks like it was heavily or directly taken from a press release as well, but that's a basic detail so there's no reason not to include that - just be careful about anything italicized on DC since that usually means that they took it from somewhere else. However that said, I did find some probably usable reviews, so yay for that. I'll add them soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, all blog reviews. (Got them from this press package.) I was hoping that Horror Society would at least be usable, but they have nothing on their page about their editorial oversight. The other sites are either outright unusable blogs or also lack anything on their site that would show that they have an editorial board that Wikipedia would approve of as a RS. (sighs) I wish more outlets would label people as editors or whatnot. Horror Society likely does have them, but chooses not to include them. I'll drop them an e-mail about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to wait, and we can always bring it back if it receives better coverage upon its September 18 release to satellite and cable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - as per Tokyogirl79. In its current state, it shouldn't be on the mainspace, but it has the potential to be developed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - article can be developed/probably will and should be user(fyed?) before going to mainspace. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.