- 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 per WP:SNOWBALL. The rationales for keep are resounding and spot-on per policy and guideline. The nominator's deletion rationale acts to ignore WP:NF and WP:SIGCOV. While appreciating his intentions, the nominator should understand that it is only when WP:NF and WP:GNG are failed that we then look to see if a film might meet still other inclusion criteria in their absence. The nominator is encouraged to discuss with project film, any inclusion criteria with which he may disagree. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Kill List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kill List is low budget horror flick that fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). most of the sources are reviews by websites. Kill List was not widely distributed and grossed less than 200k, is not historically notable, not preserved in the national archive, not taught in university classes, and is not a unique accomplishment in cinema. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a topic that easily satisfies Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. The film has been reviewed by the following reliable sources: Los Angeles Times, Village Voice, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Globe, The New York Times, National Public Radio, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, Financial Times, et cetera. Darkstar1st and I were discussing whether or not Kill List should be disambiguated as Kill List (film) as seen as Talk:Kill List. He has misread WP:NFILM and assumes that a film article has to meet the criteria there. That criteria is in addition to what is at WP:GNG. In short, a film is considered notable if it meets the general notability guidelines, the notablity guidelines for films, or both. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 18:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even without further googling, the article already shows multiple reviews from large national newspapers (we have GA-class film articles that would kill for such coverage); the film is even covered by enough secondary sources that two different review aggregation sites have collated an average review score for it, which is hardly something that happens for uncovered obscure pieces. Film clearly passes the bar at GNG. GRAPPLE X 19:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very obviously notable enough to have an article. --Michig (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Yes it's a low-budget, low-circulation film but so what? WP:GNG and associated film guidelines do not simply limit us to Oscar-winning films, Hollywood blockbusters and art films that have had university press monographs written about them. This is a film by a notable, relatively high profile and critically lauded director, which itself garnered widespread feature and review coverage. N-HH talk/edits 11:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Rotten Tomatoes lists 83 reviews. This film was widely reviewed and critically acclaimed. Being low budget is not grounds for deletion. This looks like a nomination by someone who objects to the article title rather than the article, and certainly a total failure to do the research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- perhaps you are not aware of the specific guidelines for films? Kill List meets none, see above. rotten tomatoes reviews every film so do many other websites and film critics. some believe wp should includes all such films, i do not, yet encourage those who do to expand the criteria should there be community support. Britannica includes films like star wars, star trek, Firefly (film) and 2001: A Space Odyssey, but does not mention scanners, Foxfire (1996 film), Firefox (film), because they did not meet the basic benchmark. do we really need to replicate every page of IMDB here? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you actually suggesting that we should not have entries for, for example, Scanners or Firefox? And that excluding them would both accord with notability policy and consensus practice, and do so while making for a better information resource? Seriously? N-HH talk/edits 13:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The threshold of the notability guidelines is based on the policy of verifiability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." You are incorrect in saying that Rotten Tomatoes reviews every film; Rotten Tomatoes only aggregates film reviews in one place. Thus, it is a good place to see if there are multiple reviews from reliable sources for a given film. There are some cases where a film has a Rotten Tomatoes page but has zero reviews; the page exists for database purposes. It is the same with the Internet Movie Database; there are many, many more non-notable movies than notable ones. I'm not sure if you comprehend just how many films there exist around the world. The notability guidelines are meant to allow us to have an article in which we can talk about the film. That is the goal of this virtual encyclopedia. We are following reliable sources' leads in covering films; if they have covered it, it makes sense for us to cover it too. I strongly suggest that you read through all these policies and guidelines and understand that some of Wikipedia's best content can be from films not covered in the Britannica. That is a key drawing point of Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- perhaps you are not aware of the specific guidelines for films? Kill List meets none, see above. rotten tomatoes reviews every film so do many other websites and film critics. some believe wp should includes all such films, i do not, yet encourage those who do to expand the criteria should there be community support. Britannica includes films like star wars, star trek, Firefly (film) and 2001: A Space Odyssey, but does not mention scanners, Foxfire (1996 film), Firefox (film), because they did not meet the basic benchmark. do we really need to replicate every page of IMDB here? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Request immediate closure per WP:SNOW. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:27, 15 May 2013 (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.