Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purification (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. Due to a consensus that the article just meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purification (film)

Purification (film) (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)

lack of indi secondary sources fails GNG. Film doesn't meet WP:NOTFILM Widefox; talk 18:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks a bit WP:TOOSOON. Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well as we can confirm its release, TOO SOON is inapplicable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that in TOOSOON/NYF? I do see "Attributes" 1. no evidence 2. no 3. no 4. no 5. no. Additionally it just doesn't have any notable person or company and Joseph Ciminera was deleted G11, recreated as Joe Ciminera (deleted). I've unlinked him. Despite good efforts, it is an orphan, created as a promo / COI, and it comes across borderline GNG to me. Oh, I missed John Basedow, a borderline notable BLP with COI / promo advert. Widefox; talk 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I found one review and a press release. I removed the original sources, which were all non-usable for various reasons. It relied heavily on primary sources and IMDb, but it did have two reviews, neither of which were in places that Wikipedia would really consider reliable. VideoViews doesn't seem to have any real editorial oversight, which is kind of hammered in by the fact that they misspelled "reviews" at the top of the page. The issue with the ShockYa website is that it also doesn't appear to have any true verifiable editorial oversight and the review also appears to be a cut/paste from the Examiner website, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia, so that's a no go as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This wasn't a cut/paste, but the issue with the editorial oversight does still seem to be an issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, so we have two sources without editorial control (http://bloody-disgusting.com/bd-staff/ doesn't seem to list any staff). Widefox; talk 11:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Disgusting is a reliable source. It's listed at WP:FILM/R. Brad Miska is the editor-in-chief. I don't know what happened to their staff page, but it's got editorial control. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So one without editorial control, and one that did have and presumably does still have now. Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ain't It Cool News is still considered to be a reliable source for the most part. I have my own reservations about the site for various reasons, but they do have a set staff and an editor so they're usable as far as reviews go. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not listed at FILM/R. Widefox; talk 11:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Year:(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)

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

• Keep While not the same far-reaching notability of a big studio's blockbuster, I find Bloody-Disgusting, Technorati (page 1), Technorati (page 2), Aint It Cool News and Dread Central and EMM Report enough to show that WP:NF is met... even if just barely. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding sources. Still, it seems weak (see above). (I get a security warning when checking the emmreport.com link). Widefox; talk 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources provided by MQS. –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment John Basedow is at AfD (and the disruptive WP:OWNer reported at WP:COIN blocked). That leaves this as a borderline GNG orphan with little chance of improvement. Widefox; talk 11:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Widefox; talk 13:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Widefox: WP:WAX? A shame about that BLP article, but under WP:NOTINHERITED, problems with a poor article on one of its minor actors (man with gun) does not denigrate the existing press that has THIS film topic meet WP:NF.

But as long as we're waxing, an article on Ciminera may be back... as his notability as a chef (not as a filmmaker) may allow it just as it does with chef and foodie Bobby Flay. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: WP:NOTINHERITED is a powerful essay to remind us to consider solely on the merits of this article, all well and good. It's not actually that clear-cut is it? Guideline WP:NACTOR "1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films,..." so there's an explicitly inherited relationship for actors from films (but agree none specified for films from actors, and none for minor roles). Sure, this film arguably passes GNG on its own merits (per above), but lacks normal healthy support - no incoming links as it's an orphan, it was promo/COI with the main outgoing link to be deleted non-notable (promo/COI). It may technically be a weak keep but it's not a rosy picture. Widefox; talk 09:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: But you are trying to denigrate the film's coverage through a dependence on an immaterial association of the film with a minor personality whose role was the simple descriptive "man with gun". Almost every film meriting a Wikipedia article also has actors who are themselves non-notable. At best that role is minor enough so that it should not be included in the article about the film, unless there is some coverage of "man with gun"... and I find none that include John+Basedow in way way other than his minor name being in listings. By way of extreme example, our article on the film Inception informs our reader of 14 cast members, while IMDB lists over 50 credited with many as descriptives. We do not ignore a film's coverage because some of its cast were non-notable. Sorry, but that's an extreme misuse of WP:INHERITED and not how we judge films. As even you grant "film arguably passes GNG on its own merits", there is no need to deflect by bringing forward an AFD on a different issue. As Basedow's minor role does not meet WP:NACTOR, that one goes, while this one stays. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Straw man argument. The sourcing speaks for itself - it's weak: [1] doesn't count for N (a simple listing), then we have an interview (so lacking independence) pages 1 and 2, and a primary. That leave two sources (1. and 5., as discussed above). That's borderline GNG, far short of significant coverage. There's no notable distributor or knowledge of wide distribution or award. These are serious notability issues. Separately to N, there's little or no redeeming/supporting features such as (notable actors) incoming links, outgoing links. It's an island barely above water. There's also the TOOSOON point above? Widefox; talk 11:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: The "strawman" is to ignore that GNG is met... even if just barely... and to then complain that it does not meet criteria NOT demanded by WP:NF. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:37, 23 April 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.