Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th Child (2nd nomination)


 * 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), as notability has been firmly established (and let's not forget the film's star and writer is a very famous Academy Award-winning performer). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

13th Child
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lack of Notability Barton Foley (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for nomination:

The reviews for the film located on Rotten Tomatoes are from website reviews that are not what one would call mainstream or notable being mainly personal websites or personal blog not connected to a mainstream publication or newspaper. Any coverage of the film appears to be trivial.

The link to the director redirects to an American politician named “Thomas W. L. Ashley” which led me to believe the director was not one of note. An IMDB search indicated that this is the director’s first film, and he has not directed any other films since this movies release in 2002.

The actors in the film seem to be on the downward arc of their careers, this does not make the film less notable, but the presence of once notable actors in the twilight of their acting career should not be given undue weight for notability.

In the six year since the films release it does not appear, via an internet search, to have garnered a following among academics, not being used to illustrate any points of filmmaking, nor has it been cited as a milestone or other achievement in US filmmaking. Nor have critics taken a renewed interest in the film or otherwise made it part of a noted film festival. I could find no references to the film being shown at film festivals of large repute or note.

The film was a low budget direct to DVD release. This is not in itself a strike against notability, but in the six years since its release, the film appears to have not garnered a “cult following” or made a crap ton o’ money like “The Blair Witch Project”. The film has not been picked up by a major since its release for release or other large marketing scheme. It seems to have languished in obscurity. Barton Foley (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeep - This is a low budget horror movie (although it has some notable stars and was written by Cliff Robertson) so what do you expect?? I added some more reviews and the listing at Turner Classic Movies. They think it's notable!!! miniluv (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The TMC link is just a box blurb summary, like a IMDB entry. If it has been shown on TMC...Barton Foley (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it has been shown on TCM or not. I do know that TCM doesn't include all movies like IMDB does. For example 152 (film) (which you also nominated for deletion) isn't included and it was a featured selection at 2 separate film festivals!!! miniluv (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be an argument that 152 (film) is notable. Not so helpful for this film. Barton Foley (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added 2 articles from the New York Times and 1 from Publishers Weekly. Notable enough now? miniluv (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reviews in the New York Times and Publishers Weekly clearly indicate that this article meets our notability guideline. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would ask that all who are interested read the three new added links. One is about the Jersey Devil and only mentions the movie in passing, one is a mentioning of the film being made and the other is about the book the film is based on. Barton Foley (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article is all about the movie and is substantial. The Publishers Weekly article is half about the book and half about the movie.  Regardless, neither is a trivial mention.  Honestly, if you don't think that the NYT article constitutes the kind of coverage we're looking for for WP:N, then I don't know what would. -Chunky Rice (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it was not appropirate coverage, I was asking that people read the NYT and PW links and decide for themselves, rather then (within the context of this AfD) take them at face value. Barton Foley (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Well done on the referencing part; It clearly shows that there is enough coverage for presumed notability. As the notability of this article is no longer a problem as far as i can see, its definately a keep. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 07:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeping: Unless someone has any objections, I agree with Chunky Rice and Excirial that the references lend themselves to presumed notability, and will withdraw this AfD in about 24-36 hours. Barton Foley (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are waiting to withdraw the nomination if you now agree that it's notable. miniluv (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, as people have pointed out to me, there is no rush to do things here. And if someone has an arguement as to why this film is not notable, I would be interested in hearing their perspective and views on the topic. I have had my say, you yours, and I would be interested in hearing as many others perspectives before this matter is resolved. Barton Foley (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —miniluv (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability per WP:RS and WP:V is established. A non-admin clussure or a nom withdrawal is in order per the nom's own admission that notability exists...  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.