Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack of the Sabretooth

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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Sabretooth[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)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Review at Dread Central, critic rating at Allmovie, both are WP:RS. Another review at Horror Forever [[1]], although not sure it has been vetted for being a RS. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link the Allmovie review? I cannot seem to find it. The other link you provided is clearly a blog, it is run by blogger. Either way, the two critic reviews are supposed to be indications that there is significant coverage of the film. Despite this, it is nearly impossible to find articles talking about this film. I don't think this film meets the "significant coverage" part explained by WP:NF or WP:GNG. Am I missing a lot of sources? BOVINEBOY2008 16:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - [[2]], it only has an Allmovie rating (1.5 stars out of 5), but no review published. I've seen other AfD's where only the rating is needed. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - NFO stipulates that the review should be by a national recognized critic. If we don't have a by-line, I'm not sure we should consider that a measure of its notability. BOVINEBOY2008 17:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per [[3]], Allmovie is considered a WP:RS and can be used toward notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Coverage in a reliable source does not mean notability. We also have to look at the significance of coverage. Having a star rating with no other information amounts to a capsule review which is not an indication of notability. BOVINEBOY2008 18:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        But also, WP:IAR :) Donaldd23 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        But also, WP:NOTIAR: "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons. BOVINEBOY2008 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Donaldd23. A detailed article about a Sci-Fi Channel film that has a director, producer and nine cast members, all with Wikipedia entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please review WP:NINI, notability is not inherited. This is not a valid argument for keeping. BOVINEBOY2008 21:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not persuaded by two !keep votes currently. Discussion needs further input to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2021 (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.