Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunt to Kill

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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt to Kill

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

Hunt to Kill (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)

So, this film keeps having a "notability" tag added to it. It has 3 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, which I feel makes it pass WP:NFILM, 2 of which I added to the article. One, Common Sense Media is listed at WP:RSP. There is another review (that isn't cited in the article) from Dread Central [1], listed at WP:HORROR/S as reliable.

Another editor doesn't think they qualify as SIGCOV and added back the tag after I removed it. Instead of getting into an edit war, I offer up the article to everyone to comment on it. Is this film notable enough to have an article (which I believe it is), or is it not notable and therefore should be deleted? DonaldD23 talk to me 14:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, Dread Central is pretty significant in the horror community. Not only did they run their own convention, but they also opened up a video line. They've won a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award, which has been likened to a "horror Oscar" by Entertainment Weekly and (the awards) have been pretty widely covered. A review from them would easily be considered a RS. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, I kind of take exception to the idea that a reviewer has to be known akin to Siskel and Ebert or review for a major publication like the New York Times in order to be seen as a RS. Dread Central is extremely well known within the horror fandom and is pretty well respected. They do cross over sometimes into action and whatnot since there are overlapping fandoms. It's very, VERY common for wrestling and action fans to have an interest in horror, which is why Dread Central will sometimes review films that delve into either area.
The term "nationally known" is also kind of vague. What's known to one isn't to another. A reviewer really only being known within their genre doesn't mean that they're not a RS. I'm not arguing for some random blogger, but rather a staff reviewer for a known and respected horror website. It's not some random fly by night deal and Foywonder has been reviewing for Dread Central for an extremely long time, as in decades. They have reviews going back to 1999. Sorry for the long post, but it's not the first time people have pushed back against mainstream genre websites as sources on Wikipedia. It's just frustrating to have to continually make the case that extremely well known and notable websites/outlets should continue to be seen as reliable sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, Dread Central probably meets that criteria (though more for horror films than for an "action film" like this one), and LA Times certainly does (though I can't check that one here because it's behind a paywall), but Common Sense Media and Future Movies UK almost certainly do not meet that criteria. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSM is a reliable source. Sorry that the THREE discussions about Common Sense Media all determined that it is. Can you explain why your opinion overrides Wikipedia consensus? DonaldD23 talk to me 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you think Common Sense Media, or pretty much any "website reviews", qualifies as "nationally known critics"?! Because that seriously seems to be your view – that pretty much any "website review" counts. It doesn't. That is specifically why WP:NFILM is written with the qualification being "nationally known critics" – that means, Variety, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, etc. It doesn't mean anyone that publishes a review on the web. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you don't care about the opinions/results of 3 discussions about Common Sense Media, as your view still seems to be that their reviews aren't notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With reviews, the general expectations is that it get published by an established outlet considered to be a reliable source. The establishing part is typically done by showing how the outlet has won awards, been covered, and/or is routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources - academic and scholarly sources are particularly good for this. Editorial oversight can also help with establishing how a site is reliable, but having a published editorial staff isn't exactly required for this. For example, MOMA runs a blog of sorts that doesn't have their editorial staff clearly posted - however if you click on the posts it shows that they're written by staff members (former or current) and as it's an official blog, there's some level of editorial oversight. They don't accept posts from random people, in other words.
Common Sense Media allows people to post, but their expert reviews are typically staff reviews. I think that they will sometimes accept user/freelance reviews, but they do undergo an editorial process. They are known as a review website, but they don't review everything. The reviews are reasonably in-depth as well, as they can run about 2 paragraphs. You can also see where they're commented upon or used as a source in things like this book by the American Psychiatric Association and this journal article. Now I don't know that I would use them as a source for health and medicine related articles as there are far stronger sources out there, but for reviews they're just fine. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also helps that they are listed on Rotten Tomatoes. The other site I would have to look at to determine if they could be usable and to be honest, if it were the deciding factor on notability I'd be more leery of it, but thankfully there's enough reviews to establish notability. It shows where it's been reviewed but also gives a reasonable expectation that there's coverage of the production out there. It's harder to find coverage for a 2010 film, so that would likely take more digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a general rule, straight-to-video films, like this, are generally not notable enough for a standalone article. (Yes, there are some exceptions...) For example, can anyone find any coverage of the production of this film?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI...production info isn't required for released films to pass notability, but reviews are. Production info is required for future films to have articles. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if your viewpoint is that anything that meets the absolute minimum should get a standalone article. A lot of us have higher standards than that. (It also depends on exactly what you interpret WP:SIGCOV to mean.) IOW, if you are just barely skating by minimum standards – if all you have are a few "reviews" – then it's still questionable that a standalone article is justified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that the definition of inclusion, meeting the minimum? If an article didn't meet the minimum then it shouldn't be included. So, yes, the accepted viewpoint is that if an article meets the minimum, then it should be included. If the minimum is too scant for you then take that up with the committees to change the minimum. But, until the rules change, minimum is good enough for inclusion. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "should". It's clear that you think that anything that squeaks by the absolute minimum of WP:GNG should be included, regardless, but that isn't in fact the policy (as per things like WP:NOPAGE – "Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. (emphasis mine)). Once something "can" meet WP:GNG, there should always be a followup question: "Should there be a standalone article on this?!" There is nothing that says that everything than can possibly squeak by GNG should be included here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Production coverage is only essential if you're trying to presumptively establish the notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline and thus cannot yet show critical reviews. Once a film has been released, production coverage is nice to have if it's available, but no longer a requirement — it's the critical analysis of the finished product that is fundamentally much more essential. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get kind of where you're coming from IJBall - there are a lot of films that just barely squeak by notability guidelines and it can get frustrating in those situations since it can be difficult to see how it can be encyclopedic. However at the same time, the guidelines are a little loose in order to avoid being too exclusive and then not being much different than places like Britannica. It's kind of an awkward balancing act from trying to avoid being too inclusive and too exclusive. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's always been my view – that we should strive for more than just "barely betting by GNG = standalone article!!" Not every subject – and not every C-list direct-to-video film filmed in Vancouver! (as this film clearly is – and I know 'cos I just watched it!) – merits its own article, even if it can scrape by GNG. We should strive for more than that as an encyclopedia, and restrict ourselves to truly notable topics... But also thank you for looking into production-related sources for this film. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yeah it's not the best sourcing, but it's there. Barely squeaking by or not, it's there. Rules are what they are on here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is improved and passes WP:NFILM. The Film Creator (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be fair, this is an issue that we're going to confront more and more in the 2020s — with many newspapers now cutting back on their original arts reporting due to budget constraints, more and more film reviewing is moving to exclusively online platforms like Dread Central, Film Threat or Original Cin. It's true that not all such startups would be WP:GNG-worthy coverage of a film — we still have to distinguish legitimate online film magazines from online film blogs — but some of them certainly are. And while publications like Variety, the LA Times, Entertainment Weekly or The Hollywood Reporter are obviously gold-standard sources that would clinch the notability of a film they reviewed almost all by themselves, that doesn't mean they're the only sources that count toward establishing the notability of a film. And besides Dread Central, I also see citations here to Screen Daily (a publication that is in the Variety/Hollywood Reporter tier of elite film sources) and three real print newspapers, so it's clear that this passes the bar. I'm not particularly fond of the "two media citations = instant notability pass" interpretation of GNG either, to be honest, but stating a principle that we should "restrict ourselves to truly notable topics" instead of following GNG isn't helpful if you don't propose any specific definition of how we can determine when a film has or hasn't crossed the "truly notable" vs. "technically passes GNG but still isn't truly notable" line. That could conceivably be a topic for discussion in the future, but that would take longer than one week and an AFD on one specific film of debatable notability isn't the venue for it. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2022 (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/Hunt_to_Kill&oldid=1110474163"