Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Hallows' Eve (2016 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. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Hallows' Eve (2016 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)

Article fails WP:GNG. –Matthew - (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it may not be a good film, it is a legitimate one, with a C- and D-list cast including Tracey Gold and Dee Wallace. The movie is on IMDB, and streams on Amazon Prime as well as Netflix. It has been reviewed on multiple sites, such as ScreenPicks; Cinema-Crazed; MarcFusion.com. --Leflyman^Talk 18:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the first two of those reviews contribute to establishing notability. However, unless Marc Fusion is an established cinema critic, I don't think his self-published review site does. That said I think having multiple reviews is a perfectly valid way to establish WP:NFILM and the GNG. And I agree that this film looks like a trainwreck, but if that were a disqualifying factor, we wouldn't have The Room (film). Rockphed (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, looking at that link again, it's a personal review site, with little notability; an alternative might be this Spanish language movie review site, CaspaSinestra.com. In any event, for better or worse, people have watched it, and seen fit to review it. It's passably "notable", if forgettably terrible. --Leflyman^Talk 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cinema-crazed takes submitted reviews from non-professional critics, and it's unclear what the standards for journalism is at ScreenPicks.com. Neither sources seems particularly reliable/notable. With the absence of reviews from reliable sources, fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: To be fair, the Cinema Crazed article was written by Felix Vasquez Jr., who is an established critic. Additionally, I think you might be mistaken about the website taking "submitted reviews from non-professional critics"; Vasquez allows people and filmmakers to submit films for review on his website, but I haven't seen anything which suggests that any old schmoe can submit a review to the website and have it posted there. –Matthew - (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it does have some significant reliable coverage such as Cinema Crazed and non-English sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (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.