Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Documenting the Witch Path

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. Sandstein 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting the Witch Path

[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)

I see no real changes since it was deleted via prod 2 years ago - the only new awards won are not notable and the only other change is that it was released for viewing elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago it was still a film festival film that was not released. Now it is a commercial film that is available world wide through the same distributor that released the Hell House trilogy. To win a award at Norways only genre film festival held at Cinemateket in the capital Oslo is more than notable in northern Europe. The film has also been featured in Scream Magazine which is the most famous horror magazine in the world.

Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia which also must contain films from a independent market that is constantly growing. You can already find several indie film titles searchable through wikipedia. The indie film library (That is released on major platfors) on this encyclopedia is something I would like to help grow and the same goes for different film festivals around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommyknockers: If you want to create articles about films, then you shouldn't use content that's directly copied from an IMDB description. That's plagiarism. You should write the article in your own words. Toughpigs (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am sorry about that. I'll change it right away. Thank you for pointing that out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyknockers99 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually locate solid sources. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — and the notability distinction has exactly jack spit to do with the distinction between the film festival circuit and commercial release, either: film festival films can be notable, and commercially released films can be not notable, because the distinction hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage that the film can show. But the references here are entirely to primary sources and blogs, with not even one reliable or notability-supporting source shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2020 (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.