Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassin (2015 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin (2015 film)

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

I prodded this a couple of weeks ago with the following rationale: "While difficult to research because of the commonality of the name, could find nothing on any of the search engines which shows this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. There is a film by this name which came out in 2015, but it is not this film."

The prod was removed with the following rationale: "I have no relationship with this film other than having seen it. But a film made by a filmmaker who has made other films and if there are actors in the film that have been in other films -- to me, that makes this notable. It's very dissimilar to a case of, let's say, me making a home video with a few friends of mine and saying that even though it went straight to DVD and didn't hit the theaters, that it's notable. I mean, the fact that one can find references to the film online (which are included in the article) demonstrates to me that this has met the notability requirements of Wikipedia."

Regardless of the deprodding rationale - film still does not pass notability criteria. Direct to video, nothing I could find on search engines to show this particular film is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News and browsers found some links but it seems it was not noticeably attention-grabbing so there may not be much to better improve this. SwisterTwister talk 09:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Save - film easily and objectively passes notability criteria, and the film can be substantiated as notable with a simple Google search. Proposed deletion is merely a poor attempt at solving the issue of a poorly constructed article by those who'd rather complain about the article's deficiencies instead of being bold and making it better. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Please note that this editor is the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment - Not sure why you had to make it personal. You created the article over 5 months ago, with no visible signs of improvement during that time. The citations which you have recently added are tangential mentions about the film, or from non-WP:RS (the two "reviews" are from a podcast and a website which accepts submissions with virtually no editorial oversight). I have no problem with withdrawing the nomination if you can provide enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. But I'm pretty sure that's going to be difficult to do about a direct to video film by a non-notable director. And I certainly have no issue with being bold and improving an article, as long as the article appears noteworthy, which this one doesn't come close to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Response to Comment - And I'm not sure what this is all about. Articles have to be about subjects that are notable in their fields. This film was produced by two individuals who have done other work, stars actors who have done other work, etc. In the chronicles of Danny Dyer's life, this is a notable stepping stone, as it is in the life of the two directors, both of whom are notable. The fact that it was a terrible movie, or at least one that was derided by critics, doesn't really speak to the notability here. Again, it's not like I made a movie and am saying that it is notable even though it didn't make it to the theaters. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... part of the issue though is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by notable people that have worked in/with the movie. Sometimes if a person is particularly noteworthy their whole body of work can be considered noteworthy but that person has to be an extremely influential person like Edgar Allan Poe or Steven Spielberg. Even then it can be difficult to really assert that they've reached that level of notability. I don't really see where any of the people involved in the film have reached that level of notability, which is nearly impossible for any person (past or present) to achieve. Heck, I've seen people argue against the creation of an untitled Stephen King book and the article was successfully deleted. That's how hard it is to argue for inherited notability. Even Stephen King has trouble asserting inherited notability. Now that said, I am finding some things here and there, namely this review from Flickering Myth, which has been mentioned at AMC and used as a reference in this academic text. However I do have to say that arguing for notability via inherited notability just won't work in this case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nerdly is also something that'd probably be considered a RS and it's one that I'd consider usable for the most part. It's not the strongest source, but its founder (Phil Wheat) has been listed as a RS in the past via his writings for Blogomatic3000. Nerdly has also been mentioned on Dread Central and Screen Daily. Now I will say that this review was a repost of something that was published on a personal blog, but by large Nerdly seems to have good editorial oversight. This one is sort of a toss up, which is why I rarely use it nowadays, but I'll run it through RS/N. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage out there is insanely light, but I did find enough to pass guidelines. We have two reviews and some coverage that covers the film's announcement. It's not the best coverage and I will say in the defense of the nominator, not all of the sources that come up in a search are immediately identifiable as good RS, since places like Flickering Myth can be easily seen as a SPS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Tokyogirl79 - But the two reviews are both from non-RS sources (a blog and a website with no editorial oversight). As per WP:NFSOURCES, "If sources publish materials only online, then their publication process and/or the authority of the author should be scrutinized carefully." So I don't think it passes #1 of NFILM: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:USEBYOTHERS and WP:OEN. News-source blogs are acceptable, and while reviews by (subjective) "nationally known critics" are nice to have, they are not a guideline mandate. Under WP:NF we begin with WP:GNG, and if that is met we do not then look to non-mandated "attributes to consider". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule of thumb is that we can use any critic that is listed on RT's critic tomatometer. As for Flickering Myth, we can use stuff like that if they have editorial oversight and can be seen as a RS, which I think can be shown by it being listed as a RS in an academic text. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cast easily makes it notable enough. We invariably keep films with casts as notable as this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really agree with the idea that the cast makes it notable, but I added two more reviews. Also, according to this article, it got some publicity from offline sources. There was also a sort-of review at Radio Times that looks like it may either have been a botched upload or maybe they just didn't think it worth completing. You never really know with a direct-to-video Danny Dyer film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability being established and the topic shown as meeting WP:NF. Being impatient with speed of improvement is not a deletion rationale, and while WP:BEFORE is encouraged, perhaps we should have training seminars in its application. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:10, 10 December 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.