Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled (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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Claims to have won an award at a film festival but after checking the festival itself seems to be far from notable [1]. Only coverage seems to be in a handful of blogs, and no one associated with the production appears to pass the GNG. Part of a long series of articles all created by sockpuppets all involving the same small set of non-notable cast and crew. Ridernyc (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Small independent horror films do not have the same level of coverage as do the big boys, and yes... the article needs some work, but Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting are accepted as suitable sources for indie horror. And no, its notability will never match Amityville Horror. Take problems with its author(s) out of the loop and we have at least one topic that is barely notable enough for inclusion... just. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone associated with this production was in anyway remotely notable I would agree that the blogs could maybe be enough. Ridernyc (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they were personal blogs, rather than sites with editorial oversite, I would not have opined as I did. And per WP:NOTINHERITED I care not one whit if those associated with the film are notable or not, I only care that the film received coverage in sites considered reliable for indie horror pics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent horror cinema is a niche subject, and not widely covered in well-known media. But the sources cited in this article are considered reliable in the field, so do demonstrate notability of this film. JulesH (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TOW talk 23:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 06:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per passing GNG through (named and not named) sources. Despite the nominator's claims, Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting are reliable secondary sources and not self-published blogs. Cavarrone (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2012 (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.