Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Hustle


 * 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. L Faraone  04:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

American Hustle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable film. Immediately found nice reviews by DVD Verdict and DVD Talk   and CraveOnline   Yes, the nominated article lacked use of the many available sources, but addressing THAT issue of one of the fixable things we do here to build an encyclopedia. Always best to look beyond a stub article and work toward improving it. IMHO. Nominator, now that you have brought attention to a needy article, why not withdraw?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, I have seen the dvdverdict.com and dvdtalk.com reviews, but I'm not entirely convinced that these meet the criteria for reliable sources that the notability guideline calls for. I'm not particularly active with articles dealing with movies, so it could be that these are extremely well-respected sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as required by WP:RS. If that's the case, point me in the direction of some indication of that kind of consensus and I'll be happy to withdraw. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * DVD Verdict and DVD Talk have long been accepted as suitably independent and reliable sources for use in film articles, just as is CraveOnline. Plus, it has spoken of in some detail on the Dutch site FOK! and enough others to meet the requisites set by WP:NF.  While nice to have, we do not expect that every film ever made be reviewed by The New York Times. Others may dig through earlier film discussions and offer links to the earlier consensus discussions establishing their suitability.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: DVD Verdict accepted widely for films and actor articles:  DVD Verdict accepted widely for film and actor articles:  And keeping WP:USEBYOTHERS in mind, I found WP:RSN discussions of both sites from back in 2009:     Doubtless there are more... as the two sites seemed subject to well-meant questioning every few years with the same result... but not lately, as consensus was reached. Your uncertainty may be reason enough for you to ask for clarification of their suitability over at Project Film. As a coordinator there, I would be interested to find out if consensus has changed... always a possibility.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be fair to characterize those RSN discussions as reaching a consensus on the reliability of these sources. Because of that, I think it would be premature to withdraw the AfD. I agree, though, that there's no reason not to source it out as much as we can and see if the improvements can change its prospects, so I made a few changes as well.
 * As it stands, it doesn't seem like the sources we're citing are giving this film any more coverage than they'd give to any other straight-to-DVD release that they use to pad their databases. DVD Verdict, for instance, says that it wants to review "everything that comes to market." WP:GNG's underlying logic in requiring a reliable source to establish notability seems to be that we trust such sources to tell us what is and isn't notable, but coverage from a source that thinks every film is notable doesn't actually tell us anything about notability.
 * The exception would be the Sentinel/AALB review, but I don't know if a single review is enough to push it over the notability hurdle. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have more than just a "single" review. In your dismissing the use of DVD Verdict and DVD Talk as suitable for reviewing independent DVD films, you seemed to have overlooked the in-depth analysis and commentary of CraveOnline. So I count four and more are coming under WP:SOFIXIT and WP:USEBYOTHERS. While certainly wonderful to have, we do not realistically expect every film ever made to have in-depth coverage in The New York Times or Variety, and we may look to those "lessor" sources accepted as specifically set to review independent projects. And while you feel they were inclusive, the WP:RSN discussions from 4 years ago did not result in a decision that they were unsuitable.  That DVD Verdict (or any RS) may have a page singing their own praises is a non-argument. They are not a non-profit organization and their brags about themselves is not a factor that detracts from editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of an opinion piece.  As much as I enjoyed your including a link to a funny scene on Youtube infringed by someone from The Incredibles, we are not speaking about the scripted Syndrome character line "When everyone's super, no one is."  We are specking about reasonable applicability of WP:NF, and if a released film has coverage, it might be determined as notable.  Is this as notable as the Star Wars or Star Trek franchises? Certainly not. Is it "just" notable enough to remain and be further improved? I think yes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think DVD Verdict is bragging when it says it wants to review everything; I think it's just saying that it wants to be comprehensive. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think one has to acknowledge that such aspirations reflect on its reliability as an indicator of notability. We may just disagree, so I'll move on to the other main point of my disagreement. You say that those aspirations don't detract from their reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking. I agree with that, but it raises a more important question: What exactly is their reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking?
 * If you can point me in the direction of something to indicate that DVD Verdict (or DVD Talk, or Crave) has some sort of respecteable editorial pedigree, that would go a long way to convincing me that these are appropriate sources. Short of that, I'm happy to wait and hear what others think about this, though it's increasingly looking like the two of us are just talking to ourselves. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were speaking of an academic topic, this discussion would be easier... but we are taliking films. Film criticisms are opinion pieces contained in reliable sources which otherwise vet for factual accuracy... opinions acceptable as long as properly attributed. Such attention, analysis and commentary whether positive or negative, is exactly what MOS:FILM requires. We would have loved it if someone like Roger Ebert had thought to review a minor independent film, but he preferred bigger fish. A reviewer's "opinion" is not something of which editors of news sources of the highest pedigree would ever take issue. For reviews, what matters is that the source be widely accepted as expert in their field and cited by others due to this expertise. DVD Verdict and DVD talk have that reputation and are widely cited by others.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are they really widely cited by others? I haven't seen that. Again, that's the sort of thing that would really change my mind here, but I haven't seen anything to establish WP:USEBYOTHERS applies; the only people I see citing these sources are other WP editors, which I'm pretty sure doesn't count. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: Since nomination, article has been expanded and sourced to better serve this encyclopedia. More to do, yes. In this instance, deletion does not serve the project nor its readers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as keep Thanks to Michael here for the fine work... Proving that this film IS notable... ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 11:12, 12 May 2013 (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.