Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Haunting in Salem


 * 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. Tone 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A Haunting in Salem

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD (not mine), concern: Unreviewed brand new direct to video movie. No google news hits. Eeekster (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not necessary that a big budget or a well reviewed movie article is only eligible to be on wiki. And as per google search, one has to flip many pages to find right content what they are looking for. Just when an article is only 5-10 mins old ppl tag it for deletion. Have some patience. ASHUIND  21:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct in tha ta budget is not needed. An article is. Notability Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been looking around for reviews or other sources and it's pretty slim pickings. I'm going to post what I've found here, but abstain from a vote since I haven't quite made my mind up about this. Most of what I found was either promotional pieces or non-notable blogs, but here's some of the better links I found:, , , . I just don't know if any of these are really all that notable enough. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I think the film is a very low budget one. So you'll not be finding anything on well publicized websites. Will have to give whatever online published material and reference we find. And yes I admit Blogs are not a good reference. ASHUIND  07:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All depends on the blog. Official blogs of news organization when overseen by staff of that news organization usually pass the test. And while agreeing that morehorror.com, horrorcultfilms.co.uk, and cantstopthemovies.com pretty much fail as WP:RS, 28dayslateranalysis.com has an editorial oversight and a somewhat beter reputation than the aforementioned for its offering of analysis related to low-budget indpendent films.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing to note - if you are saying the film won't be covered because it was low budget, we are not looking for press releases, and interviews with the stars neccesarily. Plenty of low budget indy films get critical acclaim and reviews from film festivals, etc. A film can be low budget and still be quite notable. WP:Notability That is what we are looking for. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as receiving the attention of genre reviewers and, now that its out on DVD, is starting to receive attention and review from more mainstream sources, such as KTLA and Consumer Reports. It may never be earth-shattering, but it has coverage and is getting more. I again have a concern toward even unitentional WP:BITE when a new article was proposed for deletion 8 minutes after its creation and just 4 minutes after an edit by its author. An article being actively editied is not exactly an abandoned article, huh? I admire NPP for their work in quelling the flood of inappropriate new articles but, and with respcts to both prodder Gaijin42 and nominator Eeekster, wouldn't a polite tag for concerns been more appropriate and just as effective than so quickly suggesting the "fix it or lose it" ash bin as the only option??  I do not think anyone realistically expects new articles to spring miraculously perfect onto these pages when created, and WP:Deletion Policy instructs that we DO have other friendlier options than immediately proposing for deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the article is expanded, well cited and referenced. From next time please don't tag an article for deletion when it has an Under-Construction tag on it. Thanks ASHUIND  15:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per article is still under construction when nominated, and since its nomination it has already become better cited and referenced article approaching WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (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.