Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (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.

Stacked (film)

Stacked (film) (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)

Short film doesn't seem to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Previous Keep decision at AfD in 2012: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film). AllyD (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Reviews aren't routine coverage and can count towards notability as long as they are in-depth and in places Wikipedia would see as independent and reliable. The vast majority of media doesn't gain this coverage and even sticking to TV, I'd say that 80-90% of what's aired doesn't get anything beyond primary source coverage. Now as far as what should be considered routine coverage, I'd say that it should be things like trivial mentions of the title in passing, 1-2 sentence promo blips, primary source coverage, and TV listings. Reviews are far, far more difficult to come by as there's far more films and TV shows out there than there would be people to review them and space to print them. This is the case even for online outlets, as the thoughts there tend to turn to web traffic and paying their staff. Most outlets are generally pretty selective and tend to go for what is guaranteed to get eyes on their articles, meaning it's usually mainstream fare, which is why reviews can seem so mundane to some.

In any case, the prior AfD showed coverage from the Daily Record and the Scotland Metro. I get the impression that there's probably more coverage, but can't find it myself. The search terms are pretty generic and Scottish sources don't really work all that well with Google unless they're more recent, so I'll refrain from making a judgement either way. Just wanted to explain why reviews shouldn't be considered routine coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as them being promotional goes, I can see where some may consider them to be as such but in general as long as the reviews are independent and the outlet doesn't accept pay for reviews, they shouldn't be seen as an advert. I'm aware that TV notability guidelines are incredibly strict for shows and episodes. I suppose the main question here is whether this should be seen as a pilot episode for a failed TV series or a film in its own right. The notability guidelines would differ depending on how it's approached. Personally I would lean more towards seeing if there's a section or article for the pilot program for the channel and cover this there in a sentence or two, unless coverage can be found. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep seems more or less sufficient. Artw (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I participated in the previous AFD for this. I note that the three sources found that convinced everyone to keep it back then, have two which are dead links. I posted on the talk page of the editor who found them to see if he can find links that work so they can be judged by current standards. Not every reliable sources has a searchable archive of everything they ever published on the internet for anyone to freely find of course. Dream Focus 09:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Dream Focus asked me to check on the sources I added in the 2012 AFD, it looks like I quickly added the first three I found; two of those links were now dead, but I fixed one using archive.org. Consider my Keep just a restatement of my view of the prior AfD. I feel like this got AfD got lumped into the "young director's 10 minute short film that no one watched doesn't merit an article" basket, which are often valid AfDs. This was really a pilot to a TV series and was broadcast on a major TV network, which is why it got the coverage we can already see cited. While maybe every one-episode TV pilot doesn't merit an article, many do (including dreck like Co-Ed Fever), because they got enough coverage to meet GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The arguments were made at the last AFD are still valid now. The general notability guidelines are met. Dream Focus 15:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Daily Record, Metro and others so that
  WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 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.