Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severed

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]
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]
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]