Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The orphan killer

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The orphan killer[edit]

The orphan killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm thinking it satisfies the first part since it has shown semi-widely and has received reviews and some coverage from some of the more notable horror review sites, although at the same time there's enough doubt that there's enough here to completely cement a keep. I've voted "keep" and fleshed out the article as best as I could, but if there's enough reasoning to delete it then I'm not going to fight it. Some of the stuff is sort of debatable, such as the "best new filmmaker"-type award.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment Virtually all of the sources are blogs or user-generated content, and much of it appears to be social-media-manipulation. This WP article appears to be part of the campaign. How much of the referencing is useful, and how real and significant are the stated awards? Acroterion (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm in the process of cleaning the article up and wading through all of the content linked in here. I can't promise I'll clean it up enough to keep it, but the current state is pretty terrible. On a side note, it does look like it won Best Picture at Terror Molins De Rei (per Dread Central), so I'm thinking this might be something to keep. It just needs a lot of work. I'll hold off on my opinion until after I'm done.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep. I did a massive rehaul of the page and it seems that there is enough notability here to warrant keeping it. I had to remove most of the sources since they were to non-notable blogs or to questionable sources, but there's enough reliable sources to places like Dread Central & such that I could show notability. I also changed the page name slightly so it's properly capitalized. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment. I do see the point about the awards and I agree that I'm slightly worried about the notability of said awards, more so for the Antonio Margheriti award because it's hard to find mentions of it beyond TOK. (It does appear to be a real award, I'm just not sure how recently this award started being given.) It has been reviewed by some of the more major review sites out there, so it does have that going for it. (I'm not sure about Almas Obscuras since it's all in Spanish, but didn't appear to be a blog.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep per work done by User:Tokyogirl79 and additional sources available that were not used, such as Bloody-Disgusting [1] When dealing with independent horror films, we look to those reliable sources that deal with such... and for films receiving recognition in Europe we do not always need English-language sources. Good job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well done Tokyogirl79 for the hard work, and for helping out the newbie. There is something ironic in not being able to cite Facebook for a film that was ... but I won't go there. The article is now well sourced and well written, and interesting too. It's clearly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indeed, really just piling on now, but great rescue. The article clearly shows the subject's notability via sources considered reliable for the topic. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 13:21, 23 December 2011 (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/The_orphan_killer&oldid=1080266336"