Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severed: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:50, 3 October 2008

Severed

Fails WP:MOVIE. Yes, it has a page at imdb, but that's not notable (or a reliable source, mostly). Yes, AMG gives some very basic info, but that's not notable. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources and the article refuses to provide it either. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. Anyone can add anything to IMDB. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have received sufficient coverage ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). Mostly horror-genre specific sites, but I see no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, I ran across a lot of stuff like that. Blogs and such are not reliable sources in my book, meaning it fails WP:MOVIE's "...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Some may be blogs, some may be more professional. This one appears to be from a site that has a staff - we could really do with an expert in the genre to comment on the quality of these sources. I don't think we can reasonably limit ourselves to printed sources these days. --Michig (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per successful updating of reliable sourcing. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 13:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Delete - not finding any big reviews. It wasn't widely distributed and didn't get full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. It's not historically notable -- no broad survey of film critics. No commercial re-releases. No retrospectives. No major awards. It fails WP:MOVIE. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was an article (review) on the film in Video Business magazine ([7]), although I'm not prepared to pay to read it, and the factual details of the film can be verified from the New York Times entry [8]. There is also an entry at allmovie ([9]). --Michig (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm also unwilling to see if Video Business offered significant coverage. That said, the "New York Times entry" is not a New York Times entry, it's a duplication of info from AMG, which it offers for all films, notable or not. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I mentioned the NYT link for WP:V purposes, not WP:N, as I believe was clear.--Michig (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Sorry if I misread that. I agree that basic details of the film can be verified by AMG. I don't want the "NYT" link to be misread as the NYT covering the film at all. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability found by Michig in sources geared toward that genre, as it is unlikley that Time, Newsweek, or the Washington Post would have a lengthy review about a horror film. The sources found may be considered reliable in the context for which they are offered. And though anyone might attempt can update submission to IMDB, the information contained therein for this film is verified by other sources... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the article itself is not sourced, is not a reason to delete, since WP:NF can be found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hopefully no one is looking for Time or Newsweek on this. But The New Yorker, Chicago Sun-Times, Village Voice, London Telegraph, or something would be nice. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Misconception The NYTimes source actually IS a Reliable Source in this instance. It certainly does contain a review written by Jason Buchanan of All Movie Guide, but All Movie Guide does NOT contain that review. They have their own concerns for COI and their reviewers often write outside reviews that they cannot use themselves. That makes this review independent and unique from AMG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Struck per an AMG error. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - No, that content IS from allmovie.[10] and it's a capsule summary, NOT a review. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Oops Looks like AMG accepted information for the same film at two different times and did not combine them... they screwed up. One at AMG #1:336224 "Severed" attributed to Carl Bessai and one at AMG #1:3505 "Severed: Forest of the Dead" with no attribution to Carl, but with the review that does. Each different AMG lists a different cast... but with the same release year and length, so I might suppose one AMG submission predates the other by a few weeks or months. My head hurts. Yikes. However, with the newer name, I did some digging. Best-Horror-Movies offers an excellent in-depth review by Lee Roberts, a nationally known expert in the horror genre, that actually lets one see how the two different names exist for the one film, and how this "Zombie" movie is notable for not having zombies... not that I'd ever see that darn thing myself. And then Cinema Fantastique (Belguim) has some good things to say. Again. I feel that when looking for notability for genre films, one must seek it from the experts in that genre. I do not expect the New Yorker to review a minor horror film, just as I do not expect Lee Roberts to review a musical. An expert offers where his expertise is accepted and respected. In that context, and for the information being offered, he meets WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: And in the meantime I had a chance to do some corrective surgery on the article. I have cleaned up the article per MOS, sourced the information to those who have an expertise in the horror genre, and added some external links and reviews in case a reader wishes to learn more. I believe a minor notability has been established. And to those who note a descrepancy in release dates in the reviews... as noted above, the film has (had) two names, and had 4 debuts in various countries from 2005 through 2007. Dates and titles all reflect the film Severed in its various incarnations and releases. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough references in the article to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the work that MQS did to the article which includes adding reviews. Schuym1 (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Credible reliable sources are in the article to establish notability and more are available. Article needs expansion and improvement -- which has already begun -- not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 '''Keep''' There are enough references in the article to establish notability. '''[[User:Otolemur crassicaudatus|<font color="002bb8">Otolemur crassicaudatus</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Otolemur crassicaudatus|talk]]) 06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''': per the work that MQS did to the article which includes adding reviews. [[User:Schuym1|<span style="color:#0000f1">Schuy</span><span style="color:#00FFFF">m</span><span style="color:#FFBF00">1</span> <small>]]([[User talk:Schuym1|<font style="color:green">talk</font>]])</small> 12:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Weak Keep''' Credible reliable sources are in the article to establish notability and more are available. Article needs expansion and improvement -- which has already begun -- not deletion. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)