Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid Teenagers Must Die!

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Teenagers Must Die!

[edit]
Stupid Teenagers Must Die! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable film per WP:Notability (films) Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no policy that says a single delete !vote prevents a speedy close. It is up to the closing admin to decide whether there is any chance of the debate ending in a deletion; that is the only important consideration. See: WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. JulesH (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is false to say that the many reviews for this film do not support notability. To quote Wikipedia:Notability (films), a film is notable if "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." To quote Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The film is widely distributed on DVD, and has received many reviews, of which I have listed just 5. These reviews are all 3rd party reviews by known Internet movie critics. The comments against this movie ring of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The film does not need to be good to be notable. Esasus (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in full agreement with User:Esasus, who has found souces by the experts, well known in their field, who are qualified offer opinions on the subject. You will rarely find reviews of cult horror films in the film section of the New York Times... just as you won't find a review of Sound of Music at Evildread or Horror Society. WP:NF is not just about big-budget, highly touted blockbusters. Reviews must be considered in context to what seing sourced. A pat on the back to User:Esasus! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But that's no excuse. If a film does not receive coverage from notable sources, then it likely isn't notable. There isn't a clause in WP:N that says "if something doesn't receive mainstream coverage, it can stay if some blogs and minor, unknown sites that write about other things like it cover it". It specifically requires sources from notable sources. If a film only receives minor coverage from niche outlets, then it would suggest that it is, by very definition, not notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it suggests that it is a niche film, which is a different thing from not notable. You're unlikely to find an article about LALR parsers in the New York Times, either, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. Specialist topics have specialist sources associated with them, and we shouldn't expect mainstream coverage of everything. JulesH (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, no part of WP:N or WP:NF requires the sources to be notable. It only requires reliable and independent, which the sources above (mostly) are. Just because you've never heard of them doesn't mean they aren't perfectly acceptable sources. JulesH (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An exactly corrrect interpretation of the inclusion guideline. Wiki is not just for highly touted, highly merchandised blockbusters. Niche films, reviewd by well known experts with expertise in their genre, can most definitely be notable. FIRST CRITERIA of WP:NF: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It has, so it is. The additional criteria are simply indicators for the uninitiated that explain how this first criteria can be met. Since it HAS been met the very first criteria for inclusion, there is no need to quibble over "indicators". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said it yourself. "You will rarely find reviews of cult horror films in the film section of the New York Times...". No significant coverage. Your analogy to the Sound of Music suggests that the NY Times is specifically for a certain type of movie, however that is not true. NY times coverage clearly shows notability, however you stated yourself that this is unlikely to receive that kind of coverage. LetsdrinkTea 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I'm saying. All that I am saying is that WP:Notability (film) stipulates that, along with wide release, (which this film does have) it must also have at least two reviews from "two or more nationally known critics". It doesn't say "two or more critics that, while not nationally know, write a lot about that genre of film." Not one of the reviews posted are by nationally known critics, not by a long shot. That's the main issue here that nobody is addressing. I understand that a film like this won't get a write-up in the New York Times, but a film on this scale could still be reviewed by nationally known critics. However, it is not. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are making the error of arguing about "indicators", rather than accepting the very basic inclusion criteria... which is itself short and hard to misinterpret: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The "indicators of likely sources" are not exclusion criteria and are set in place to help an editor determine ways to meet the inclusion criteria if they were in doubt. That inclusion criteria has been met. No need to act as if "indicators of likely sources" were themselve inclusion/exclusion criteria. They are not... and as clearly ateted in the guideline WP:NF, "are attributes that generally indicate the required sources are likely to exist". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The apparently you didn't read WP:NF very closely. The first possible criterion for inclusion clearly states "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No my friend, it is you who have not read it correctly. You are acting as if the "indicators" of sources likely existing were actually instruction. This very specific inclusion criteria you have skipped over is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Since it has met that criteria, it IS PRESUMED NOTABLE, and has been shown to be so, specifically, and as that opening instruction dictates. What you are in good faith but erroneously quoting as criteria, are simply an "indicators of possible sources". The criteria for inclusion have been met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it hasnt met that criteria at all. Blogs and SPS are not reliable sources and none are written by critics of any reputation. We can't just except any old reviews by nobodies that just happen to have webhosting. User:Rwiggum is correct that the guidelines say two or more nationally known critics not random bloggers. When we say that a film doesnt necessarily need mainstream coverage we are talking about coverage in specialist magazines like Rue Morgue (magazine) and Fangoria for example. Let's examine the sources:
  • evildread.com nothing to establish any reliability. Discounted.
  • http://thisissomescene.com is a small blog of absolutely no importance or note.
  • HorrorSociety.com explains itself as "a small but personal place where you can come and hang out for a while." This is a self-published community website of no reputation. --neon white talk 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://dorkgasm.com appears to be based on user driven content. Discounted.
  • http://www.fatally-yours.com Again another SPS of no note or importance.
As you can see when the sources come under scrutiny they all fail to live up to the standards required for notability. Rotten tomatoes has zero reviews professional or otherwise and metacritic hasnt even heard of it. In light of that i have to go with a Strong Delete--neon white talk 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on all of these sources, but thisissomescene.com is a project of several well-known independent filmmakers, who can be considered experts on the topic. It is clearly a reliable source on independent films, particularly low-budget horror. fatally-yours.com is a collaborative site featuring reviews from several reviewers, with editorial control of the founder; it is not self published. Besides, as you'll see from WP:SPS and WP:RS there is actually no rule against using SPSs or blogs as reliable sources, as long as their authors are reliable. JulesH (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 more external reviews added to article - I took a few minutes to add another 13 external reviews and links for this movie, so the article now lists 18 independent reviews. I am certain that with another 10 minutes of work I could add yet another 20 or more reviews (but I thought 13 was the proper place to stop for a horror movie). Will an editor be critiquing all these reviews also? This film clearly meets notability criteria. Esasus (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what you've done is flooded the article with useless links to no-name sites. Not one of those is a reliable source per WP:RS. Please read the guidelines so you can see that not one of those links you provided proves notability. Plus, the New York Times link you provided is not a review, it is a page for the movie on it's movies section, which is primarily user-generated. That's akin to linking to the IMDB page and calling it a "review." Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It takes only "two or more" full length reviews to meet the notability criteria pursuant to Wikipedia:Notability (films). I could add another 40 links, but it would be pointless as I have already demonstrated that the minimum criteria has been easily surpassed. Further, this article meets the General notability guideline criteria, being that the subject “has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.”. The definition for each word of that quote can be found at Wikipedia:Notability. The independent coverage of the subject has been demonstrated. Notability is presumed. Esasus (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you have actually added are largely blogs and personal websites that fail WP:EL. Regardless external links arent not sources, the reason we have them is because we cannot use them for sourcing. If any of the sites listed have any reputation then that needs be established here. Verifiability and reliability are concepts that need to be proven not assumed. --neon white talk 05:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing the editor of adding blogs and personal websites. Ouch. Blogs and SPS? Let's see if that's true, hmmmm...? Let's actually take a real look at what's available instead of simply painting everything with one negative brush, shall we?
  1. Evil Dread review by Jayson Champion: A reliable source for reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a blog. Not SPS. Not to be "discounted" simply because you don't like that it exists.
  2. This is Some Scene review: According to a bit of actual research, I find "Guerilladelphia - A Declaration of Independents! Guerilladelphia has developed ThisIsSomeScene.com to report and review the entertainment world in true Guerilladelphia style! R. James Ippoliti created Guerilladelphia and This Is Some Scene and is joined by Chris Blake Sasser, Kristin Theckston, Andrea Fix and Adam Young in covering entertainment news, reviews and interviews. We are in the process of adding to the Guerilladelphia crew of writers."... and then they share a list of editorial staff. Were you thinking no one would check when you wrote your unsourced opinion? Nope, not a blog. Blogs do not have editorial oversight. Other editors are free to follow the links and see that your assertion is incorrect.
  3. Dorkgasm offers a review by their senior staff writer Kenneth Holm. Editorial oversite. Not a blog. Not SPS. No more driven by users than the New York Times. Dorkgasm reviews horror genre films. The article is about a film. Hmmm... suspicious.
  4. Fatally Yours has an editorial staff. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  5. Fatally Yours offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film.
  6. Fatally Yours also does an in-depth review of the film too. Imagine that... a site with editorial oversite doing a review. Wow.
  7. Horror Society review is also another by a source that specializes in reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a bblog. Not SPS.
  8. Killer Reviews offers a review by staff, not by users. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  9. Movies Made Me Do It offers a decent review, and invites commenets. Not a blog. Not SPS. To use the reader comments would be wrong. To use the staff review would be appropriate.
  10. Killer Reviews also is one that offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film. Not a blog. Not a SPS.
  11. Film Arcade offers a staff review and then accepts reader comments. Staff review, okay. Comments, not okay.
  12. Dead Lantern offers an in-depth staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  13. Scream TV offers a staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  14. The New York Times as least shows the film is not a hoax. Not a blog... or is it? Hmmmm...
  15. DVD Resurrections offers an editorial review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  16. Horor-Fanatics offers a review and release informations. Not a blog. Not SPS.
It passes WP:GNG. It has been the recipient of multiple and significant covergae by experts in the field qualified to ofer such opinion. The VERY FIRST CRITERIA of WP:NF is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources are inpendent and reliable experts in their field. It's what they do. The guideline DOES NOT require that the sources themselves be notable... just reliable. ANd it must be pointed out that the sources above HAVE met ALL REQUIREMENTS of WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". The sources offered HAVE a credible publication process, the authors ARE experts in the field (horror) regarded as authoritative and trustworthy, in CONTEXT to what is being sourced and because they DO have an EDITORIAL staff, and are completely supportive to assertions being made. This is quite easily determined by reading and understanding the guidelines and verifying the sources. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NY times is the only one that has any established reputation and it's coverage is minimal. None of the others have any established reputation or are of any note and yes guidelines clearly require that reviews are by nationally known critics not bloggers. There is absolutely no evidence that any of these sites are known experts. Note from your own quote credible published materials doesnt mean every website. As reviews are opinion this is not about verifying facts, it's about the importance of the critics and none of these have any proven importance. Eseentially they are nobodies not nationally known critics as required. --neon white talk 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline does not require the "independent reliable sources" must themselves be notable, nor does it require that reviews be from "nationally known reviewers". That is merely, as specifically stated in the guideline, one of the attributes, that if it existed, would indicate that sources are available. It does not in any way, shape, or form act to restrict sources nor mean that the sources MUST be only nationally known reviewers. This is a common misunderstanding of the attribute section.... using it as exclusatory rather than indicative. Not at all the same. That the cited sources have been successfully reviewing horror genre films for many years, speaks toward their expertise and acceptance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, see WP:NF, "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Pretty clear and obviously to rule out the use of unimportant reviews on community sites and blogs which have never been acceptable as sources. Many unreliable sites have been around for years, that's simply not how reliability is established. --neon white talk 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)--neon white talk 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I studied it carefully. Your quote is of an "attribute that indicates that sources may be available", not itself a inclusion or exclusion criteria... simply an indicator that suggests one keeps looking (as we both have). However, we can stop debating that point I suppose, as we both found Fangoria and I found OC Weekly and Backseat Film Festival... the latter two also having wiki articles. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Michael: upon review the article does appear to be supported by refs to independent news sources that -- despite the fact that they are specialized media, unknown to me -- appear to be be legitimate review sources and not just discussion groups. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As i said before, specialized media would mean trusted sources like Fangoria etc. rather insignificant self published websites, blogs and communities. As WP:SPS says anyone can create a website, go to the movie theatre and write a review online. There are literally thousands on the internet and it has never been acceptable to use them to assert notability. --neon white talk 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources are easily as trusted as Fangoria. They are not self-published... no more than is Fangoria or Wikipedia. That you feel dissmissive of them does not mean they are dissmissed. And why do you continue to throw the negative word BLOG into the mix? They are not so, having editorial oversite. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply false. None of those sites have any proven reputation whatsoever. There is nothing to suggest any of these sites are regarded as important by the film industry. The burden is on a source to prove it is reliable we don't just assume it is or make snap personal judgements. However it does appear that the film was reviewed by Fangoria (a source that does have a reputation) [7]. --neon white talk 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... having an article on Wiki is not as impressive as one might wish... and becasue these others have not (yet) been written up does not mean they do not have decent reputation. However, I did just find the Fangoria writeup, an article in OC Weekly[8], and awards presented by the Backseat Film Festival[9]. They've now been added and I popped over to say so... only to find that you have been digging as well. I am not through with this one quite yet. And thank you. Nice find. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:26, 23 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stupid_Teenagers_Must_Die!&oldid=1069629242"