Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Hunters: The Beast of Bevendean

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 delete. Discounting socks and those with a COI, there is a clear consensus that, right now, SIGCOV of this film doesn't exist and therefore, the article should be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young Hunters: The Beast of Bevendean

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

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

The director's page, which was a suitable redirect target was just deleted. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film is to provide comprehensive and detailed articles on Wikipedia about topics related to films. This article falls within that. It has recently been requested that this article be improved - which it has been. References and citations for this article have increased 150% from reliable sources. One contributor deleted, or prosed for deletion several times, but has not justified this current proposal. Time is best spent improving articles rather than deleting them. Suedeakin01 (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a database, and the film fails both GNG and NFILM. The first source is a database, the second is Amazon, the third source is not WP:SIGCOV, the fourth is probably not RS, and the fifth might be SIGCOV, but is not nearly enough on its own. I could not find any reviews in RS. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes Wikipedia is not a database, no one said it was. It is an encyclopaedia for the benefit of the public. Removing an article is not the way to proceed. As it does not help the users of Wikipedia. I disagree with your assessment of RS as two press articles relate directly to the film's production. Suedeakin01 (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The film does pass WP: GNG and NFILM as it is both noteworthy, and the references used are from reliable and significant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suedeakin01 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the The Argus source is significant. The article is only about 180 words long. A large portion of the article is made up of quotes from the director and some background information of the director. It is hardly significant coverage. As for the argument that the article is helpful, see WP:ITSUSEFUL. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a number of citations and references at the moment. 5 references at the current time. There are 1000s of Articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film with fewer (some far fewer) references. Some of these articles were created by the user who has recommended this page for deletion. Deleting an article doesn't help anyone I'm afraid. Suedeakin01 (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2022
The number of sources is irrelevant. One is Amazon, one is a database, and one is non-RS, and of the last two, one is not SIGCOV. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSHELPFUL. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your opinion. Radio Times is not a 'Database'. The news articles are SIGCOV. The other source is a RS. If Amazon is not considered reliable source than this can be replaced. But no reason for deletion of this article. Suedeakin01 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, while RadioTimes is not a database, the first source is just a listing, which is not SIGCOV. The Argus article is far too short to be considered SIGCOV. Even if visionary-thinking.net is reliable, the article is merely a plot summary. The new source you added is merely a cast list. The only possibly SIGCOV source would be the last. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio Times reference confirms facts mentioned in the article i.e. cast and crew etc. That is it's purpose. RE: The Argus you seem to be against the news article because of it's length, which is irrelevant. It confirms information stated in the article - which is the purpose of the citation. Suedeakin01 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the RadioTimes reference could not be used, I only stated that it does not count towards notability. The length of an article does determine if the article counts as SIGCOV. Again, I never said that The Argus source could not be used, just that it does not count towards notability as it is not SIGCOV. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an article about a noteworthy children's film. It passes NFILM and is reasonably well referenced. It could be improved with further detail on 'plot' perhaps and a section on the film's reception. There is enough coverage to meet wiki WP:GNG Capulet1 (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There can't be a reception section if reviews in RS don't exist. The article is not reasonably well referenced. The first source is a database, the second is Amazon, the third source is not WP:SIGCOV, the fourth is probably not RS, and the fifth might be SIGCOV, but is not nearly enough on its own. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best sources are the ones from The Argus and Brighton and Hove Independent. These are both local interest stories from newspapers in the director's hometown. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Jfire (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wikipedia:Notability then the following must be satisfied; "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources" ie secondary, & "Independent of the subject", criteria which both of the newspapers you mention meet. WP:GNG says nothing about being a regional publication - all printed newspapers are regional. Actually on the internet, they are not even regional - they are international. It is a notable film so does meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) Suedeakin01 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JayShurey This is a notable children's film, and the sources are reliable (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user likely has a conflict of interest, as Jay Shurey is credited as a producer of this film. Jfire (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2023 (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.