Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft VII: Judgement Hour

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft VII: Judgement Hour[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 entry in a direct-to-video film series. Nothing but blurbs and listings. The nice piece on the series, contributes to the series' notability, but not this particular film. Should be a redirect, but another editor continues to insist on recreating the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is an important entry in the series as the main character dies and the series attempts to do something new in film 8. The continuing female Lutz character is introduced (something like a low rent Scully) who is important to the series mythos. The villain here is a vampire which is a new direction for the sries Also, the film series is notable to as it has some notoriety for lasting despite a general consensus of poor quality. It would be unwieldy to have all 16 movies on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdprince45 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep: The TV Guide review is relatively lengthy (about seven to eight paragraphs more or less) and while not the strongest source out there, is still generally seen as a reliable source. CraveOnline is also something that's typically seen as usable as well - although when I do use their sites I tend to use JoBlo's Arrow in the Head just because they typically review the stuff I'm into, which happens to be what I'm more likely to create articles about. In any case, the link for them (Mandatory) is a fairly lengthy writeup of the movie, about nine paragraphs in all. AllMovie is always a dubious source for me. I typically stay away from them because their reviews are usually just star ratings. If they have an actual review they can sometimes be usable, but more often than not I tend to avoid their site. In this case I don't see that source as really usable. I'd say that Creature Feature would be usable, however the book doesn't seem to review the book. I have the 2000 updated edition, but it's not listed and I doublechecked to make sure that there wasn't another update that I wasn't aware of. I've removed this as a review. The AV Club is definitely a reliable source and the writeup is actually surprisingly lengthy considering that they're reviewing eight films in one article - three whole paragraphs. In the end this isn't really my strongest keep possible since the coverage is fairly lackluster, but there does seem to be enough coverage to justify it pass NFILM in that there are three reviews of the film in places generally seen as reliable on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi ReaderofthePack - Does Mandatory.com meet WP:RS? I can't find their editorial policy on their website, and (particularly in this instance), the entry reads more like a blog. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets wp:nfilm and wp:gng, several reviews listed including two recent lengthy articles. Dcfc1988 (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Reader of the Pack as there is enough coverage to barely pass WP:GNG such as AV Club and TV Guide and others Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 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.