Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Kombat Legends: Cage Match

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat Legends: Cage Match

[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)

contested draft. This was released straight to DVD etc. and BEFORE provides no indication of sourcing A redirect to Mortal_Kombat#Films would be fine until such time as sufficient sourcing exists. Star Mississippi 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Video games. Star Mississippi 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm leaning keep here, as I think
WP:NFILM
is met.

IGN review [1]

A lengthy review [2] by an experienced reviewer in Elements of Madness, a webzine with a full masthead[3]

We also have a review in by Sam Stone in CBR [4]. CBR is owned by Valnet, so marginal reliability overall, but Sam Stone is also published in PopVerse [5], GamesRadar+ [6], and SlashFilm [7], so I think we can treat this specific piece as reliable.

We also have an
IANS news agency piece from a few months back [8]

—siro χ o 07:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film has been released. Sources mentioned by Siroxo attest it is notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The first "source" goes against
WP:BLOG. Additionally, WP policy is that articles by the same writer are not considered reliable if they appear in potentially unreliable sources. Additionally, I am unconvinced by what is essentially a glorified press release. Besides the IGN review, it's really reaching. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
How does the IGN review go against
WP:BLOG. Mooonswimmer 16:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I meant second. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the sources provided by User:Siroxo. Mooonswimmer 16:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes GNG. A fast Google search showed other sources including from Bloody Disgusting a very reliable source for horror, cult and other R-rated media. There is also this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this ★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason these sources were not mentioned. Simple press releases and announcements don't constitute
WP:SIGCOV. Not one of those appears to be something more than restating a press release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Found these as well 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.★Trekker (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 & 2: CBR is a situational VG source, and adding these doesn't really serve to make the film any more notable as CBR is already sourced in the article.

3 & 4: promotional interviews centered more on McHale than the film itself.

5: questionable, as site is only a decade old with no editorial oversight or policies on "about us" page.

Thank you for searching and I'm sure I sound like a Debbie Downer but these are just my observations.
^{• whaddya want? •} 04:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per User:Siroxo's source analysis. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 00:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. With each release of the Legends series it seems that viable coverage gets smaller and smaller. Links provided by Trekker are merely release dates and trailers, neither of which constitute significant coverage. I'm also not seeing such in the sources provided by Siroxo; EoM is a blog, whatever of the IANS article is visible reads like a press release, and just two reviews by reliable sites (CBR and IGN) won't cut it in terms of notability.
^{• whaddya want? •} 01:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per the CBR and IGN reviews together with other coverage, enough for
WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Independent coverage of this film is nearly nonexistent. Only two critical reviews from viable sources (with CBR being situational) are not enough to establish notability. The other coverage in the article is BTS content and interviews.
^{• whaddya want? •} 04:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/redirect to WP:VG/S#Valnet. That leaves 2 reviews, which is not enough to establish notability (and I'm not sure even if Edge of Madness is a reliable source). --Mika1h (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Edge of Madness is not a viable source as it's a blog and accepts submissions from contributors.
^{• whaddya want? •} 03:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. To clarify, Edge of Madness appears to be a fairly established webzine with good practices. I linked the masthead above for people to review on their own. They have a head editor, and the founder/critic who wrote this specific piece (different person than the editor) is an established critic and a member of Critics Choice Association (see here), which has selective criteria for membership. Beyond the individual piece, note that they have a limited list of contributors on the masthead, and do not accept guest posts. —siro χ o 00:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does a "full masthead" mean?
^{• whaddya want? •} 07:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I mean as in Masthead (American publishing). —siro χ o 08:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOE is that two good film reviews are sufficient to establish notability. Just throwing that observation out there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:39, 5 November 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mortal_Kombat_Legends:_Cage_Match&oldid=1184884363"