Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th Child (3rd 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 Speedy keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

13th Child
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. Result of previous AfD was "Procedural keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Withdrawn by nominator" as per the sources provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep first of all the result of the previous AfD was not "procedural keep", it was just a normal "keep" (the result of the AfD before that was "procedural keep"). This conclusion was reached because the film has been the subject of articles in The New York Times and Publishers Weekly. Admittedly that debate was a while ago but even under today's standards that is clear evidence of notability and both are currently cited in the article.  Hut 8.5  21:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this tv guide review. Gab4gab (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs some improvement, sure, but notability has been established. Notability would've been established via the RT reviews alone, as reviews have always been usable for notability giving purposes for movies. The thing about RT is that they don't take reviews from just anyone - the reviewers have to meet very specific guidelines that are actually pretty difficult for the average movie reviewer to meet, especially for websites:
 * "Online publications must achieve and maintain a minimum 500,000 unique monthly visitors according to comScore, Inc or Nielsen Net Ratings and reviews must have an average length of at least 300 words. Publications must also show a consistent standard of professionalism, writing quality, and editorial integrity across all reviews and articles. Lastly, site design and layout should also reflect a reasonable level of quality and must have a domain name specific to the property."
 * So basically, it's not like just anyone can join up or that site popularity alone would be the sole criteria. Also like the others have said, the film has been covered in various outlets. This movie will never be Citizen Kane or The Exorcist, but it's gotten enough coverage to justify passing NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and trout the nominator, basically every word in his deletion rationale is completely inaccurate. Also, there is an obvious lack of WP:BEFORE if not more (apparently he did not even checked the RT link and the other sources currently in the article), the article was nominated just two minutes after starting another AfD. I would also note in a few hours the nominator voted for deletion in about 200 AfD, boldly redirected dozens of articles with the rationale "non notable on its own since 2008" and prodded dozens of others, generally spending one minute per article. I have not looked into them except for a couple, but if his carefulness is the same he showed here, a topic ban could be necessary. Cavarrone  12:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination -- duly trouted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2016 (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.