Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheels (2014 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels (2014 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)

Indie film with no real coverage in reliable sources. Article was mostly built by an UPE (blocked since) and their sockpuppets (at least 2 of them blocked since). Sources are promotional-tool sites where the producers could buy coverage to publicize their film: broadwayworld.com, imdb, two minor film festivals which mention the film but provide no info about it. One UCLA campus newspaper review by a then-freshman at UCLA writing about it. I don't think that qualifies as significant coverage.

The three accounts that were UPE/socks/block evaders were clearly gaming the system. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Obviously I'm in favor of delete, but wanted to add what brought this article to my attention. It appears the makers of the film engaged in a huge vote-stuffing campaign on both imdb and Rotten Tomatoes. On imdb, there's over 23,000 votes for an unknown movie and nearly 22,000 of them are 8s, 9s, or 10s (10s are the vast majority). On RT, despite there being only 1 review, over 100 users voted to give it a 98% "fresh" user rating. Even Metacritic has six user reviews and all gave it a perfect "10". A valiant effort, supplemented by the aforementioned UPE(s) socking. Someone paid a few bucks to get this article built. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading the arguments in the previous deletion discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good resource... with care. One of the "keep" votes (Film Fanatical10069) is a confirmed sockpuppet of an UPE, and another (Кость Лінивець) probably was, based on bahaviour, but that account is no longer active so no way to confirm. A real editor voted "keep" citing Broadwayworld.com, which according to this discussion is not a reliable source to establish notability, because you can pay that site to publish a PR article for you. WorcesterHerald.com, despite the official-sounding name, is not a real newspaper, just a website that was briefly active for several years and is now dormant. I doubt that's a reliable source either. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After another conversation with Toddy1, I wanted to elaborate a little more. I'd like to make it clear that I did remove references that were promotional in nature, and some that were just trivial mentions of the film. The sock editor added them back, I reverted, and Toddy1 reverted me to avoid the impression that I was deleting references just because I wanted the article deleted. The opposite is true - I think the article should be deleted because the references, every single one of them, are either (a) user-submitted content like imdb, (b) paid-for quasi-advertising like broadwayworld.com, (c) trivial mentions of just the title, and (d) one UCLA campus newspaper review by a student. Those are all still there, and I'd encourage voters to look at each one. If you do, you'll see that while it's an impressive-looking mountain of references at first glance, none of them actually stand up to scrutiny as reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage. They were all engineered, one way or another, by people looking to promote the film, and that's why a paid editor(s) and socks were the ones adding them in. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply does not pass NFILM. While there has been a major attempt to promote this film, it doesn't pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 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.