Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead at 17


 * 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Dead at 17

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically deemed "inherently" notable just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test hinges on evidence of distinction, such as notable film awards or reviews from established film critics in real media (i.e. not the user-generated comments in IMDb or an IMDb clone.) But the references here are Amazon, Letterboxd and other IMDB-like film directories, which are not notability-supporting sources, and even on a WP:BEFORE search for stronger sources, about all I can find is this, which is a start but not in and of itself enough if it's the only real source on the table. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, review found at CineMagazine. [], not enough for WP:NFILM, but a start. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As provided by nominator and Donaldd23, the two links of reviews in reliable sources, are more than sufficient to establish the film's notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't find any indication that CineMagazine is a reliable source for the purposes of building the notability of a film; it looks for all the world like a blog, and I can't find any indication whatsoever that it's actually a real or reliable magazine. It's not "everything is assumed to be a reliable source until proven otherwise"; the burden of proof lays on showing that it is a reliable source before it can be used, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * CineMagazine is an independent source with editorial oversight and a quick search of past AfDs will show it is used in many discussions to satisfy notability requirements. Not sure if an actual discussion on it has ever taken place, you are free to start one, but until then you can check their about page, which shows independent critics and an editor []. It is a Dutch website, and just because it uses the word 'magazine' does not necessarily mean that there is an actual print edition. It is not a blog.  It appears to pass WP:SOURCE, which stats "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"."  Which Cinemagazine appears to pass as it has been used in dozens of discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be also noted that a film's standing is likewise capable of being judged on the basis of the cast and crew's credits. In the case at hand, the director, editor and nine cast member all have Wikipedia entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. CineMagazine may be usable, but it's not the strongest source and not one that would stand on its own as far as keeping an article goes. I tried sifting through the newspaper archives, but could find little for this other than TV listings of it being shown, which is fairly typical for any type of film. At best the other sources are routine database listings, which cannot establish notability. They can show that the film exists, but existing isn't notability. Nor is notability inherited by the notability of a notable cast or crew. It may make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee. This just looks to be a film that, despite having known actors in it, just sailed under the radar. This is kind of the norm for direct to video and made for TV films, to be honest. (Can't tell which it is, just that it's one or the other.) ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agreed. I wasn't arguing for keep with the CineMagazine review, just stating that I found it.  The article would need more than just the one review to be kept.  Thanks.  Donald D23   talk to me  14:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of reliable sources. I don't think this article meets the significant coverage requirement, as ReaderofthePack notes above. Edittac (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2021 (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.