Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll 3

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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW, and withdrawn by the nominator without any non-keep !votes The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troll 3

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

Google searched and Google Books searched for the film, including its alternate titles, and no results have established it as notable. LF (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just realised Something Awful has its own Wikipedia page, therefore that should make the film notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. LF (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I don't entirely understand what SA has to do with the notability of Trolls 3. If by this you mean that if SA has its own article then Trolls 3 should have one as well, be aware that just because something else exists that does not mean that articles without any RS shouldn't be nominated for AfD. If SA had a hand in the production of the movie, also know that notability is not inherited by their involvement with the film.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article links to a review on Something Awful; I think LF is saying that Something Awful is a reliable source (I'm not 100% sure it is, however, because SA started off as a one-person site, and I'm not sure to what extent it is trustworthy or has proper editorial procedures). However the article on Troll 3 needs coverage in more than one reliable source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking for reviews. Dread Central, usually considered a reliable source, has one[1]. There's a few reviews on other sites which may not be reliable sources, some listed on the article and IMDb[2]: Something Awful [3], The Cinema Snob/That Guy With The Glasses, Bad Movie Nite[4], etc. Cinemassacre has a bit on the trilogy[cinemassacre.com/2010/10/23/troll-trilogy/]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not exactly Casablanca, but there are enough reviews to keep the page, IMO. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also reviewed, with different titles, in The psychotronic video guide, Horror Films of The 1980s (pp.431-432) and in the Italian books Dizionario dei film italiani stracult (pp.168-169) and Joe D'amato - Guida al cinema estremo e dell'orrore (pp. 49-59). Cavarrone (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And thanks to Cavarrone for research which I don't intend to repeat since I only have access to the first two titles; this school of filmmaking is not everyone's cup of green slime, but its most significant representatives (including quite a bit of the work of Joe D'Amato) are, AFAIC, notable. Ubelowme (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the nominator may be trying to withdraw this AfD[5], but as long as it remains open I will echo the conclusions of Cavarrone and JoelWhy: this is a bad movie, but a notable one.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:NRVE and WP:SNOW. While the nominator feels his level of WP:BEFORE was sufficient, others dug just a bit deeper, and their expanding searches to altenate titles proved successful. Heck this Italian film had international distribution and release in the US under 4 differrnt titles. Kudos to Cavarrone and Colapeninsula! While the article could definitely benefit from use of available sources, they do not need to be in an article on the topic for a topic to be notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 27 June 2012 (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.