Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magma: Volcanic Disaster

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magma: Volcanic Disaster[edit]

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

Unnotable made for television film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. Only a single review, in DVDTalk, for the DVD release, and listings in the usual movie directories with little details there. It can be verified it exist (it was hilarious at that), but it has not managed to establish any notability since 2006. Even for a Sci Fi channel thing, having only one review is pretty bad. Prod removed by User:Arbitrarily0 with note of "contested prod; please pursue deletion through AfD". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than DVD Talk, I found this. If someone can find a third reliable source with significant coverage, I will change my !vote. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have performed some major sandblasting and moved the quite lengthy storyline to its talk page, as there is no need to retell the entire film in the article. DVD Talk, Monsters and Critics, and DVD Verdict all panned the film. If a film is a stinker, they are happy to tell us. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the plot was ridiculously long, I was a little surprised at just how much you removed. That said, with three reviews I'm on the border of its being notable (yeah, it was bad, but that's why it was funny!). If all we can ever say on it is the plot and quote three reviews, does it really make the film notable enough for an article? As a side note, the lead really doesn't need that citation on who starred, directed, etc. The film is verifiable and that info is available in the film itself. 13:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Its moved to the talk page. When I first began going through it, I realized it was script outline and not a plot. I'll be working on it more and returning a far sleeker version, but would love assistance. And sourcing is not yet complete, as yes... critics did find it so bad it was almost funny. I'm finding more on the deeper pages of my search. Will be back and advise further. Best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I just returned a slightly trimed version of the storyline to the article. Though it is lengthier than I might wish, it is informative to readers in context to the film's reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per changes and sources provided by User:MichaelQSchmidt. JBsupreme (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2009 (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.