Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Den_(film) References

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. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Den (film)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There just doesn't seem to be enough coverage to show how this film passes notability guidelines. All I could find was an article heavily based off a press release, one article, and a notification that the film won an award at a middle level film festival- large enough to give some notability but not large enough to give enough to keep on that alone. PROD contested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. There's some coverage at Film Threat here that indicates it received mainstream press coverage and caused an uproar. Not sure if that's exaggeration, but Film Threat is usually reliable, even if they are excitable fanboys. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep per meeting WP:NF: Twitch Film [1] Film Threat [2] et al While not as wide and earth-shattering as we could wish, it has non-trivial coverage is in sources recognized as reliable for independent genre films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I saw the first source and I think I put it in the article, but the second source is a reprint of a press release and the Google hits are pretty much the same. If you can find a review in a RS, I'm willing to withdraw this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I am unable to determine how the Film Threat interview of the filmmaker and his discussing the film is a press release. Perhaps press releases borrowed from the interview? Twitch Film offers new information and includes the press release in their analysis... but they make note in their article that they are using a press release in support of their other information (rare honesty). And it does seem to have a bit more that trivial coverage in the online e-zine Acid Logic. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I meant that the Twitch Film was primarily a press release. I'm just concerned about it holding up with notability in the future if it was nominated again (assuming it will be kept). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Understood. I like that in their honesty they shared the press release as an acknowledged release in context to their additional information. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I liked that as well, although part of me couldn't help but wince at that since it would make it a potentially unusable source for some. It's the type of thing that if left as is, could result in someone nominating it again in the future. It's times like this that I wish I did work for one of the horror review sites so I could ask one of the reviewers there to go over the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\
talk / 09:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC) reply

W̶e̶a̶k̶ ̶d̶e̶l̶e̶t̶e̶. Currently the sources are not reliable or notable enough. These need to be expanded considerably to keep. -- PDX er1 ( talk) 15:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC) reply

PDX er1 and Tokyogirl79, as the topic of this film was covered by CNN, perhaps you may wish to change to a keep, even if only "weak"? (Needs latest Quicktime player) transcript . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. After ^{Michael Q.}'s comment I went through and added two sources while removing two repeated ones. At this point I'm convinced there's enough coverage for an article, hoping that there might be a few more mainstream sources added later. -- PDX er1 ( talk) 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. I'm satisfied that there's enough coverage for an article here – if not now, then we'll dig up enough later. Multiple reliable sources indicate there was a controversy over the film, and now we've got indications of mainstream coverage, as well. I think this saves it from being a case of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. It's not a lot to go on, but it's at least something. If nothing else, this at least deserves mention in Saw (2004 film). NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 11:02, 27 March 2014 (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.