Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blink (2022 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Blink (2022 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lacks notability for a standalone article based on a short film that premiered on Youtube. When doing a simple Google search, only one reliable source (The Hollywood Reporter) mentions the film. As such, it fails notability guidelines. Callmemirela &#127809; talk 15:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Callmemirela  &#127809; talk 15:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable cast, notable crew, and mentions in these articles:, , . Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The three sources above appear reliable (discussions for 1 and 3) and have already been added to the article. Definitely at least passes GNG. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 22:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I see only one short article in a reliable source (Hollywood reporter). I can't see slashfilm.com nor bloody-disgusting.com as reliable sources. All three cites, though, are very short blurbs about the film. Having a "notable cast" isn't one of the criteria for film notability. This doesn't meet any of the criteria. And I hope it isn't improper for me to mention here that the article was created by Some Dude From North Carolina, one of the keep votes above. Lamona (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How are two full-length interviews "very short blurbs"? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The only one that is full length is slashfilm.com. That is also the only interview - quotes scattered through an article \= interview. The other two are brief articles, and the TWR one is only partly about this film - it then goes on to talk of other activities of the creators. The bloody-disgusting one is essentially an announcement that the film will be shown. That comes under WP:ROUTINE. Interviews are not independent sources for wp:blp articles about people, and I'm assuming (please point to the policy if I've missed it) that is true for articles about creative works that interview the creator(s). I did look up bloody-disgusting and slashfilm; the latter is stated to be reliable for the genre; I don't see a RS decision on the former. Lamona (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bloody Disgusting is an established WikiProject film reliable source for horror films as listed at WikiProject Film/Resources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep – Per comments from Bsoyka and Some Dude From North Carolina. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Hollywood reporter is too short to be considered significant coverage. Slashfilm is an interview (thus not independent), so it does not contribute to notability. The third is just a trailer announcement which again does contribute to NFILM / GNG. No reliable reviews cited or found -- Ab207 (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there is prose in the interview and enough in the other sources for a close pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2022 (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.