Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12/12/12 (film)

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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12/12/12 (film)

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

Article about a horror film which does not have enough reliable coverage to meet the inclusion threshold of WP:GNG searches for this film primarily capture a concert/film for Hurricane Sandy Relief and found no reliable sources to support any interest in or coverage for this film. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Delete per nom. Yes, it does garner minor mentions on a few horror film blogs and fan sites, but nothing that satisfies WP:NFILM, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

> The authored non-blog reviews found: 28 Days Later Analysis, Dread Central, Talent Monthly, Ralphus, Cinefessions, Deadworld, Film Critics United, Matchflick Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While yes, there are many unreliable sources sharing reviews, 28 Days Later Analysis is generally acceptable for indie horror genre films, as is Dread Central, and even Talent Monthly. While not the wide coverage as a big studio blockbuster, we have something just sneaking up on WP:NF. And we can probably have an article soon on Jared Cohn. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed? I have a dislike of the genre and I tend to only consider mainstream news outlets or journals at WP:RS. In your experience this horror fanzine type sites are considered reliable and notable for this genre? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly many of those found are unsuitable, but not all RS "have" to be big corporate drones or mainstream news outlets like New York TImes. For instance, Dread Central is not a fanzine, and has passed the test of WP:RS. While still ongoing, there are efforts to address those acceptable "less-than-mainstream-news-outlets" over at WP:FILM/R. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I change to neutral. I don't edit articles in this area of film and really don't care for it, and it seems as if there are websites I'd never heard of that may be considered reliable for this sort of thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple film reviews by secondary sources, some aren't the best, but some are good enough for me. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2015 (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.