Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond the Stars

Add links
Source: 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. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Stars

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Beyond the Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NFILM. I searched Newspapers.com and ProQuest for reviews but other than an interview with Olivia d'Abo and a couple blurbs only found listings. While its seems it was an all-star cast, I noticed for some of them this film was before their breakthrough roles (Slater, Stone, d'Abo, Davis). S0091 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It does not change much about the film's notability, in my opinion but, I'm sorry, I noticed for some of them this film was before their breakthrough roles (Slater, Stone, d'Abo, Davis). is at least not accurate concerning Slater. His breakthrough was earlier, as the article about him or sources I added to the article about this film clearly state (the LAT even called him a veteran actor then....(he was 18, yes)). Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see that now. S0091 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's my rationale: there's just not much out there about this. It looks like this was a film that was quietly given a limited theatrical release in hopes of gaining an audience, but when that failed it was shuttled to TV where it just fell further into obscurity. I can't find any sourcing beyond a few mentions of filming, all of which look to be based on the same press release, and a few offhand mentions in articles written about the actors in regards to other projects or topics. Of the sourcing in the article, what we have is pretty light. I'm definitely of the "a review is a review regardless of length" camp, but I only really recommend using those when there's at least one meaty review to bolster them. One of the more lengthy mentions is the Italian source, which I will note was self-published. I don't see where the author is particularly seen as a RS themselves so I have to consider this a SPS that is unusable as far as notability goes. Other than that we have very brief listings in Videohound, Leonard Maltin's 2013 Movie Guide, and The Sci-Fi Movie Guide. These sources are frequently challenged in AfDs and I seem to remember a general agreement that Videohound is unusable for notability purposes since it does actually go out of its way to include every film possible. Maltin is somewhat usable as it is a bit more exclusive, but it still gets flack when it comes up. The Sci-Fi book is a bit more specific, but the listing is so short and feels like more of a database listing than a review. None of these are really great or strong sources. Other than that, the other sources are basically just mentions of filming or database listings that say that the film exists without giving any sort of discussion. This just doesn't pass NFILM based on the available sourcing and I can't find any evidence that there ever was more substantial coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just added an assessment in FIlmDienst. Not sure you'll find it meaty enough, but still. The German WP mentions, among other things, 5+2 pages about the film in a biography of Stone. I couldn't check that claim, though. I for one, don't think they are needed as, all in all, I found this can really be considered OK. Yours. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Added French meat for you@ReaderofthePack: It does in my view seal the deal, but see for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found this which has a bit background and the cinematographer's perspective but it also states is was never released in theaters. ?? S0091 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think Leonard Maltin's guide, plus the German and French reviews put it over the top. Clearly an unsuccessful, obscure film, but with a cast like this, surely notable enough to warrant a page. Toughpigs (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maltin's guide is a listing and the German source is a a brief synopsis, not a critical review. I can't independently assess the French review but based on the quotes provided it does appear to be a review. The cast in and of itself matters not unless WP:NFIC is proven but that does not seem to be the case. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Leonard Maltin's Guide counts, as NFILM pretty explicitly states that To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database (though I have no strong opinion on the other sources). VickKiang (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is enough coverage present to pass WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per good sourcing with famous cast members. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article does have sufficient coverage to be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.11.113 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Per WP:HEY and with thanks to Mushy Yank and others for adding sources. There has been a lack of sourcing discussion on this AfD, and a few reviews at the time of release do not show notability, although, per WP:SUSTAINED, they might if they happen over a long period. However, sources added to the page include the Sci Fi movie guide and other books, that collate this and do demonstrate sustained interest. I think the three books added to support the text "Beyond the Stars was noted for its ”interesting cast’." themselves probably meet the criteria for GNG (significant mentions in independent reliable secondary sources, although with Readerofthepack's caution noted too). On a more personal note, I actually watched this movie years ago. On the other hand, I had all but forgotten its eminently forgettable script. But a movie doesn't have to be good to be notable. As has now been added to this page, this one is notable for being a bad movie with good actors. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (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/Beyond_the_Stars&oldid=1200677814"