Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firequake

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firequake

[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, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 00:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. The article lists three "critical reviews", but in one of them I can't find any kind of score or review, one of them is neither from a reliable source nor a known critic, and one of them is simply a score with no actual review or coverage. Searching for any additional sources turns up pretty much nothing worthwhile - its listed in articles on roles that Alexandra Paul has appeared in and that's about it. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. The article has no reliable sources. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "critical reviews" criterion in NFILM is not automatically passed just because it's possible to find IMDB-like film directories that include star ratings in the profiles — it requires analytical content assessing the film's strengths and weaknesses as a movie, written by established and bylined film critics and published in real reliable sources such as major newspapers or books. Which means that zero of the footnotes here qualify as notability-building sources, because the only one that actually includes any sort of analysis comes from an unreliable personal blog. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the cited reviews do not pass WP:NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:16, 22 June 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.