Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead In The Water


 * 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. JForget 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead In The Water

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable film; fails WP:N and WP:NF. Deprodded with note of "contest prod - film won a couple notable awards & was reviewed by several reliable sources (see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235333/externalreviews) - add referenced claim of importance; add cats; will trim excessive plot section & expand ASAP", however IMDB is not a reliable source and the "notable awards" are one film festival award and a minor DVD award. The reviews linked at IMDB are not reliable sources. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep it is true that IMDb isn't a great source, but we can easily source the award directly to the notable film festival's webpage if needed. It won best picture, best director, and best cinematography at New York International Independent Film and Video Festival, which is a major film festival. That's 3 notable wins.  Of the film reviews, at minimum AMC's Filmcritic.com and  Epinions.com are major nationally known sources. Probably a couple of the others qualify as well (Rotten Tomatoes considers them worthy anyway), but I'm not an expert.  (A film review can't be "unreliable" - the criteria for establishing notability is whether the source is nationally known, not whether it is "reliable").  Additionally all 3 of the lead roles are notable actors - Henry Thomas, Dominique Swain, & Scott Bairstow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional coverage can be found under its Brazilian title:
 * ePinions is NOT a nationally known source nor is it a reliable source. They are user submitted reviews. Film reviews are just as reliable and unreliable as any other source. The film, again, fails WP:NF. A Film Festival win is not a major award nor notable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Acyually, Epinions is a nationally known and accepted source, themselves oft quoted by numerous relaiable sources . Not all their reviews are simply "user submitted". One can easily confirm if a review is from Joe Sixpack or from a nationally respected reviewer. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the epinions review was an editorial review, not a fan review, but I could be wrong. (I am well aware the site allows fan reviews - I am not that dumb.) Let's just throw that one out.  Apollo movie guide is certainly well known and reputable, as is Reel Film Reviews. Here's a review from trade publication Video Business and one from Allmovie.com].
 * Also, how exactly can someone's opinion of a film be unreliable? It can't!  That is why NFILMS uses the language "has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" instead of "has received full length reviews by two or reliable sources."  NFILMS also specifically states that, while there is no clear consensus about which film festivals are major that a major film festival award can establish notability.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ePinions is purely user reviews, they are not editorial reviews. Anyone can join and post reviews. And yes, an opinion can unreliable. ANYONE can post a opinion about anything, that doesn't make it reliable for Wikikpedia purpose. "nationally known critics" = reliable sources and REAL critics, not a user site that just happens to have national coverage WP:FILMS does not override WP:RS or any other guideline or policy. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already said to discard ePinions so I don't know why you are still arguing about it. An opinion can't be unreliable in the normal sense of the word, which is why the nationally known clause exists.  For purposes of film, as you said a nationally known critic is the equivalent of a reliable source.  Again, I don't know what you are arguing about here as I am certainly not saying a fan review at a well known site is a "national known critic." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you had bothered to look above or below your own comments, you might have noticed User:MichaelQSchmidt's attempts to inflate the importance of ePinions by doing exactly that. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And with respects Calton, if you had yourself bothered to look at the timecodes, you'd see my comments were made after his, and in response to an earlier assertion by the nominator, as ThaddeusB is correct in that were are allowed to consider the reviewer himself. Had a epinion review been offered that had come from Joe Sixpack, rather than from someone who is themselvves a nationally recognized, respected, and oft-quoted reviewer, my comment would have made little sense. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And the specific review from Epinions is from respected reviewer Daniel Fienberg, who also writes for such as Television Week, Baltimore Sun, Daily Record, Daily Pennsylvanian, and many others... and is himself quoted by still more RS. His opinion matters. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Solid Keep Article is even now being cleaned up, even though AfD is not supposed to be for forcing cleanup. As User:ThaddeusB points out, the film has recieved attention from numerous respected reviewers whose work is both seen in and oft-qoted by reliable sources. And with respects, the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival is not exactly a minor festival. Winning multipe awards (Best Cinematography, Best Director, and the Grand Jury Prize for Best Feature Film} at this notable festival is icing on the cake. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete despite the attempts at resume inflation. No real suggestion of actual impact nor of reliable sources discussing it in-depth -- and no, a few random film reviews are NOT discussing "in-depth". --Calton | Talk 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reviews in the article are offered exactly as directed by guideline. Reviews specifically about this film are in no way random. In response to that interesting comment, I can only herein suggest that editors and the closer take a look at the reviews from respected and nationally known critics David Nusair, Kevin Laforest, Christopher Null, and Daniel Fienberg to see that they are indeed quite in depth, and that as such specifically meet the criteria of WP:NF. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As was already noted above, the reviews you point to are not reliable sources. Some random ePinions review? User submitted and not reliable. Reviews have to meer WP:RS the same as any other source, as I think you already know. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out above, I did not pull a random, user-generated review, and specifically shared in the edit summary the pedigree of the reviewer whose work is being quoted. Or are you saying a nationally recognized reviewer's work counts only dependent upon where he offers it? That would be akin to saying Roger Ebert's opinion only counnts if it is in New York Times. If a reviewer has a recognized and accepted reputation, then it is his opinion that matters... not where it might be found, as not all RS have been so qualified in RS, and the reviewers have been quoted in sources that are RS. Context... context.  If Joe Sixpack gives his opinion and then Roger Rbert gives his opinion, it is the reputation of the individual (or lack) that gives or removes credibility, not where they offer it. In this case the "reliable source" is the individual who has created his own reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Ebert has it, Sixpack does not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prove the ePinions person is the same national critic quoted by the other sources, while keeping in mind that ePinions does NOT vest any profiles, names, etc. Users register and begin posting and can write pretty much anything in their profiles they want. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my good faith in the name and the context. However, since you doubt that this review was actually written by Fienberg, I have removed it from the article and placed it on the article's talk page for discussion. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per ThaddeusB. And while the reviews mentioned in various !votes may not meet RS requirements for factual claims, it is clear that the principal coverage of creative works will be in the form of reviews, the extent to which a work is reviewed by nontrivial sources is a valid factor to be considered in assessing notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I see there is a link to Rotten tomatoes which clearly counts.  D r e a m Focus  22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NF is a guideline only that we are supposed to apply with common sense. The combination of the multiple NYC indie film festival awards, the (admittedly limited) reviews and the fact that it's been released by Lions Gate Films adds up to a fairly obvious keep, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article seems to be a fairly standard movie page. Nothing unusually wrong here. --Scouto2 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: . — Rankiri (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2009 (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.