Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Flick

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Flick

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

Non-notable film that fails

reliable sources. Orphaned since November 2006 as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable movie. DVD Talk is actually a reliable source, but it's the only review of the film out there to my knowledge. I'll try and have a look and report back here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found the LA Times review that is mentioned in the article, but it looks like local coverage of a film that never left Los Angeles. If nobody else can find national coverage, I think this is probably non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it had left Los Angeles. It had a release on Brazilian television as "Golpe Mortal", and a DVD premiere in Netherlands in 2005. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per meeting
big studio, big financed, highly touted blockbusters, just so long as inclusion criteria are met. Will the article build much beyond a short start class? Perhaps not... but it serves the project and its readers quite well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

LA Times is local coverage. The only thing approaching non-local coverage is the DVD Talk source. Kindly point me to some evidence of the film getting coverage. Rotten Tomatoes, although it has a page on the film, has NO reviews. That's pretty indicative of a clear failure of
WP:GNG, which you're touting it as passing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The LA Times is not local coverage. It's one of the biggest newspapers in the USA, covering a metro region of 18m people (bigger than the Netherlands), and based in what's arguably the world's entertainment capital; this isn't somebody's hometown newspaper doing a "local boy made good" story. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the film is from LA, it's local coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to show that the film is LA in origin and that this wasn't just the place where it first screened. If it is, then it could be considered local coverage. If not, then it'd be considered a usable RS. The problem is that most films will have a minimal amount of business done in LA, either through screening or something similar. However if you can show that the entire film was made, produced, and created by someone who lives in LA most of the time, then it could be considered local coverage. That's incredibly hard to prove, especially with a lot of the older films like this. Now as far as RT reviews go, there is a list here that shows that LA Weekly reviewed this once upon a time- we just can't find the actual review.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The only reliable source reviews I've seen other than DVD Talk come from LA. It got a mention in a book, but nothing more than a namedrop. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, a hometown gazette or a small-town newspaper without a worldwide audience would fit the creiteria of "local". That Rotten Tomatoes does not share all reviews is their fault, not Wikipedia's. We do not control editorial practices or content of websites outside these pages, nor do we expect a film to remain forever in the headlines.
WP:NTEMP. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

What on earth are you on about? The only sources I've seen have either come from LA or have been unreliable, apart from the DVD Talk one. You still haven't given anything to satisfy notability whatsoever, and your babble about "editorial practices" is irrelevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated complaint above has been that some site outside of Wikipedia does not show reviews. We do not control their practices. And rather than
digging, but the film's simple and non-unique title {Killer + Flick) gives a whole lot of false positives in searches. Thank you for your courtesy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said that Rotten Tomatoes didn't list much, which is indicative of a non-notable film. That still rings true, as it wasn't the only place I'd looked for sources (and I didn't just search "Killer Flick" either.) I'd like to see some actual evidence of the Film Threat review; the fact that it was an AOL Member's site that claimed to be official (or was official) makes me dubious of any claims; it's the 2000s equivalent of Blogspot, to put it mildly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No website lasts forever, specially those set up by independent filmmakers on a tight budget. Sure, it would be terrific if low-budget indies had the same promotion budgets as their big studio big-budget brethren, but we need to consider instead if they have just enough to meet
back then. Personally, I do not doubt it screened internationally and had a 2005 DVD release in the Netherlands. I applaud the filmmakers for seeking and getting distribution through Bridge Entertainment Group and Vanguard Cinema, and will look for non-English reviews as well as seeking the archives of 15-year-old reviews. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

And don't get me wrong Luke... I applaud your
WP:NTEMP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

True, but AOL Member's was the equivalent of Blogspot. I'm not doubting that it screened internationally either; but I'm not aware of how that actually conveys notability (some spectacularly non-notable films turn up in weird places.) I'm glad you are looking for the sources (I know I'm being a little more aggressive than I should be, but people misrepresenting what I say does annoy me a lot; particularly when I've been up for 15-and-a-half hours, and went cycled 10 miles in that time) and I hope you have rather more success than I did. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 23:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets
WP:MOVIE as this film is widely available on DVD and has been reviewed by several well-known critics as evidenced by the sources within the article. Dolovis (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2013 (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.