Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flu Bird Horror


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn per additional reliable sources found during discussion. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Flu Bird Horror

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

Unnotable made-for-television Sci-Fi film. Fails WP:N and WP:NF. No significant coverage nor reviews in RELIABLE sources. Failed PROD after creation 2008 (prod removed by creator claiming he was still working on article - article has not changed since then). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not widely distributed, no reviews by major film critics, no significant coverage by reliable soures, nothing to say this is a notable movie. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nationally aired on Sci-Fi Channel and now available on DVD. Has received genre-specific reviews by genre-specific experts. Meets WP:NF as per WP:RS when "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context". Wikipedia does not mandate that Wall Street Journal or New York Times review genre-specific films nor that Bloody Disgusting or Fangoria write articles about Barrack Obama.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you only added a single reliable source, the New York Times, which is just its standard movie directory listing, so it confers no notability. The rest were not reliable and have been removed. Specifically, dreadcentral.com, does not meet appear to meet WP:RS, and hometheaterinfo.com is a personal self-published site. While you mention Bloody Disgusting (which is RS), you added no review from it to the article. In checking, they did not review the film, and considering they usually review most of Sci Fi pictures stuff, that is rather telling. The only reliable horror site to review the film has been Monsters and Critics, and that one review is not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Airing on Sci-Fi does not meet WP:NF nor WP:N. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The review sites that review horror films mentioned it. This type of film doesn't usually get mainstream attention.   D r e a m Focus  02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Proof please. Blog sites are not reliable sources. It has not been reviewed by reliable horror sites. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not (yet) having a Wikipedia article about itself does not mean a genre-specific source is unreliable... it only means the article has not yet been written.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An opinion that Dread Central is a blog is not supported. It is itself accepted as an genre-specific expert by other reliable sources.  Did some homework. Dread Central was founded in 2005  and part of the Crave Online network.  They have genre-specific editorial oversite with staff including experts Steve Barton and Scott A. Johnson .  As a genre-specific  expert, Dread Central is itself quoted by sources such as St. Petersburg Times, Joblo.com , and Fangoria .  I have returned the information and cites you in good faith removed for lack of this information.  And as for Crave Online... well, they were founded in 2003 . Crave Online has a large editorial staff and has expanded through a number of subsidiaries and acquisitions to reach huge demographic, with entertainment network including Comingsoon.net, Dread Central, DVD File, Film School Rejects, Movietimes, Shock Till You Drop, Satanspace, The Bad & Ugly, The Cinema Source, The Movie Insider, and Wild About Movies .  As of August 2008 (10 months ago), their combined network of over 70 entertainment-related domains list at bottom) was receiving 36 million unique visitors every month... thats 432 million a year . That they do not themselves already have a Wikipedia article is a bit surprising. However, it is on my list.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just added review by E Splatter. Founded in 1999, E Splatter was acquired by Gorilla Nation in 2007 as part of their network .  Their reviews are quoted as genre-specific experts by such sources as New York Times , Buffalo News , Sunday Telegraph , and National Review .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just added review by DVD Talk. They were founded in 1999 by Geoffrey Kleinman as a resource for information about DVDs of all genre. In 2004 DVD Talk launched the online radio/podcast called DVD Talk Radio. In 2007 DVD Talk was sold to Internet Brands .  Led by senior editor John Sinnott, they have a large staff of writers and editors, and are quoted by such sources as ABC News, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today.  The site receives 5.6 million visitors monthly, 4.8 million of them from the United States ].  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you continue pointing to primarily non-reliable sources and they have been removed. If you disagree on Dead central, bring it up at WP:RSN to reach a consensus that it is reliable (currently, it is not vetted). DVD Talk was not in the first batch of reviews you added, and yes, it is reliable, but that is still only two (the DVD Talk and the one I pointed out above that you declined to include). The rest you continue trying to add have not been accepted as reliable. - Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is deemed acceptable by consensus. Two people agree its fine, one person is against it.  Since you agree he has found two reliable sources mentioning this movie, do you agree it is notable?   D r e a m Focus  14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What consensus? It hasn't been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard nor anywhere else. You agreeing with him that its reliable doesn't make it a consensus that it is. And no, I don't agree its notable. Two sources is not significant coverage. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any rule that says you have to discuss it there. You use common sense.  Do you disagree with his findings that Dread Central meets all requirements?  Or are you just wikilawyering?   D r e a m Focus  14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not get to decide what is and is not reliable, and you certainly are not neutral. You think anything and everything is reliable, so your view is rather unhelpful. Sources which are questioned should be discussed at the RSN where experienced editors can agree whether or not they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for what is and is not reliable, not Dream Focus' idea of what should be considered reliable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't think for yourself, you have to let others do it for you. Alright then.  Back to that nonsense once again.  Common sense would indicate that Dread Central clearly meets all requirements.  If no one doubts that, then there is no need to delete simply because it hasn't been discussed and added to an incomplete list yet.   D r e a m Focus  17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Collectonian, it seems that Michael Q Schmidt has made a good case that those sources are reliable, particularly Dread Central (though I don't think the Steve Barton who has a Wikipedia article could be the one who works for the site, as the Wikipedia article says he died in 2001). If you think the sites aren't reliable, then you should make some arguments refuting his claims that they have editorial oversight by experts in the field and/or are cited by other reliable sources.  Sources don't need to be vetted at WP:RSN or any other location specifically about discussing sources - this is just as good a place as any other to discuss whether the sources are reliable.  Calathan (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * RSN was suggested as a neutral place, and when sources are questioned it is often asked "has it been discussed there" because it is a place where those experienced in source evaluation can generally be found, as opposed to here where until now there were only three participants, at least one of whom has repeatedly made it clear that he disregards all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including RS. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * C, Please do not use AfD as a forum to denigrate other editors. Not yet having an article on Wikipedia does not mean a source is unreliable.... it only means it has not yet been written. And PS,  I will add the M&C you pointed to. Thanks for that.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per rescue by MichaelQSchmidt. Granite thump (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have added review Monsters & Critics per Collectonian above as well as review by Blog Critics.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 17 June 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.