Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck! The Carbine High Massacre

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. postdlf (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duck! The Carbine High Massacre[edit]

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

Not enough substantial reliable sources cover this film - fleeting mentions in books and little news coverage means this fails WP:NFILM Beerest355 Talk 02:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, it's worth pointing out here that the relevant guideline reads "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". There is no notability guideline requiring "substantial" coverage... which is not the same thing... and not a Wikipedia requirement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the article needing work (an addressable issue), this film meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. A little looking shows it reviewed in Film Threat [1] and production spoken of in more than a trivial fashion in such as The Gazette [2] and MinnPost [3] The New York Times [4] (via AllRovi) B-Independent review [5] and others.[6] It's not a big budget blockbuster like Star Wars, but is is notable enough to allow this to remain and be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Minnesota Post is small, unsubstantial coverage, the AllRovi one doesn't work as it was written as a summary, B-Independent is not a reliable source, and that books is minimal coverage at best (a few sentences in a section about an entirely different movie just isn't enough). Beerest355 Talk 22:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but MinnPost, The Gazette and Film threat all give information about the film that is direct and in detail and not trivial in nature. WP:SIGCOV is met, as is WP:NF. The other independent sources you dismiss (except perhaps the B-Independent) can be used to verify various portions of the article. And while the book source discusses this film in relationship to the the film's inspiration... the Columbine High School shooting... it also deals with the topic of THIS film in a more-than-tivial manner... and lest it be forgotten, an article topic need not be the sole topic discussed within a source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Books - Peep Shows: Cult Film and the Cine-Erotic and From the Arthouse to the Grindhouse. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the Grindhouse book was mentioned, but I disagree about it not being significant. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another article about the legal case involving the film - [7]. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Headpress: The Journal of Sex, Religion, Death: Bad Birds. For this book, a page long review for the film can be found on page 45. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [8] at United Press International. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I invite editors to take a look at the original unsourced version as was first nominated for deletion, then look at and judge the improvements made to determine for themselves whether or not WP:NF is met and whether or not the project is now better served. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest that the nominator withdraw this AfD. The film is clearly notable and is now at DYK - Template:Did you know nominations/Duck! The Carbine High Massacre. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets the HEY standard now, good job both editors (though I must say I do disagree with the film's premise itself) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2013 (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.