Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harpies (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 keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Harpies (film)

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

Meager sourcing for a made-for-TV movie. All plot. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. North America1000 02:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, no valid results for "Stephen Baldwin" + "Harpies" on GNews, GBooks, or Newspapers.com. (Caveat: ProQuest isn't working for me right now.) Zero evidence of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Zero? Dread Central review is cited in the article. That's one.  Donald D23   talk to me  11:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, and theres a snip review in The Christian Science Monitor, here (may need a subscription to access?). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep One review and a "half-review", notability is just established. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Dread Central and CSM sources. Donald D23   talk to me  22:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: FTR, ReaderofthePack has been working on this article. They've reduced the plot summary and found more sources, though even they admitted the new sources may not meet WP:RS. I appreciate the effort, but I still don't think there's enough here to warrant an article for a one-off Siffy Channel movie. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Becker describes the making of this film in great detail in his book Rushes.  Becker, of course, is not independent of the film so his book cannot count towards notability, but it can certainly be counted as reliable and used as a source. SpinningSpark 12:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How would we feel about a Merge into Josh Becker? Let's face it; this was a one-off made-for-TV film which sank w/o a trace. It's only notable as part of the filmmaker's larger body of work. Only the most rabid inclusionist would miss this article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "How would we feel"? Well personally I feel you are being gratuitously insulting to other editors with the comment that only rabid inclusionist would miss this article. My opinion on the merge is that that is WP:UNDUE for the director's article – and that is your opinion too judging by that comment. But perhaps what you are really looking for is "deletion by redirect" without merging anything substantial. SpinningSpark 21:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't see anything substantial in this article and I think the discussion supports me. I see lots of "Well, here's a source, but..." "I found a review, but..." "I guess this kinda meets notability."
 * I guess this also speaks to the larger issue of, do we really need to document every TV movie ever made? Is there no piece of pop culture trivia too picayune? It's like the WP:NOTTVTROPES issue. If this was a wiki for TV movies, great, but shouldn't we aim a little higher here than being a repository for every disposable movie of the week? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. In addition to the sources above, This book on the film’s producer Stan Lee has coverage on the making of the film. There is also a 2014 review in this science fiction ezine which has editorial oversight, so I would consider it RS. All together we have three independent reviews, the independent Stan Lee book, and the Becker book. 4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent work! Since you're the one who found these sources, how about adding them to the article? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:45, 23 June 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.