Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghastly (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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ghastly (film)

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

Non-notable film that fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Refs available are trivial announcements, such as 1, databases, 2, and unreliable blogs, 3 (Wordpress blog), 4, 5.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  VickKiang   (talk)  01:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the nomination. Fifthapril (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Can I ask why you think the article should be deleted? all sources I provided were WP:WPKR/Reliable sources approved (for those review blogs, I never posted or even saw any of those so feel free to remove them).
 * Also, I was planning on adding sources for everything here, I was just preparing a list, this article is clearly not complete yet so I was disappointed to hear it's nominated for deletion.

As for the improvements, I found hundreds of articles about the film, I tried to select the most relevent ones here:
 * [3 ] Via Maekyung Media
 * [2 ] Via Cine21
 * [3 ] Via Nate
 * [4 ] Via Cine21
 * [5 ] Via The Chosun Ilbo
 * [6 ] Via StarNews    RWikiED20 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of your sources are routine announcements (mainly with quotes) or interviews, and probably doesn't constitute significant coverage. If you could find two reliable in-depth reviews or articles with significant critical commentary, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination then as it would pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. However, the refs provided doesn't show this yet.  VickKiang  (talk)  20:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know reviews are necessary here for the article, because as I said there were a lot of articles about the film, some more detailed than others (the Cine21 report had pretty much everything). I don't understand how critical reception could get the article deleted.
 * Also, if you're familiar with the Korean entertainment industry, you'd know there isn't really much critical reception in the Korean media, there aren't sites like Rotton Tomatoes or IMDB, and the only reviews you could find are passing mentions in some reports (mostly aren't even professional),  Cine21 is the closest one to having professional critics and I already pulled links from it. RWikiED20 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The lack of reviews could possibly indicate iffy notability, but I concur it alone is not a reason to delete an article. But I disagree with that many of these articles are SIGCOV, though let's wait for the views of more editors to build a consensus. Your analysis is reasonable, though I was just referring to criteria 1 of WP:NFILM, The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. It appears that NFILM is failed, so we're looking at GNG. Despite having lots of quotes and plot overviews, this seems IMO decent, but others IMO fail SIGCOV. If we're looking at GNG, some of the refs you linked fall under: not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources IMHO. You'd know there isn't really much critical reception in the Korean media, there aren't sites like Rotton Tomatoes or IMDB- I didn't expect that this would have many reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, besides, per WP:RSP IMDb is generally unreliable. owever, let's agree to disagree here, and I appreciate your efforts. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  23:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree that none of these sources constitute significant coverage and are minor news stories. The interview article could possibly indicate some notability, but interviews are still generally considered primary sources. If this interview is the only notable source in the article, then I don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  03:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Just getting nominated for an award doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Many of the sources are just short mentions.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 11:49, 13 October 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.