Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Queen (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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ice Queen (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Twice now this article has been expanded to have a ridiculous plot description. I think it's time to kill it off: it isn't notable, I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Fences &amp;  Windows  13:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , , , , and . Joe Chill (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The opinions of "Super Heidi" and "Paghat the Ratgirl" are reliable? I think you need to be more discriminatory in your selection of sources, I don't think any of these sites has a reputation for reliablity and fact-checking. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Why would you want to delete something that is 100% factual about this fantastic movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayley jane111 (talk • contribs) — Hayley jane111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Enough discussion in reliable sources to pass WP:N, I can find enough in Google coupled with Joe Chill to feel OK about this one. -- Jayron  32  14:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and continue searching for sources improvements per Joe Chill's WP:BEFORE. While I can appreciate the nominator's concerns toward the article's history, corection is best done through regular editing, not deletion. Further, I note that editors ARE doing this... taking what was first nominated and turning it into a reasonable Start Class article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough preaching Michael. I did follow WP:BEFORE, those presented sources are not reliable. And I want it deleted, not cleaned up, I'm fully aware of the purpose of AfD. A reasonable Start class article doesn't entirely lack credible sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did not intend to sound preachy. I did find that a JoBlo review makes reference to a Fangoria article, but have not yet been able to track that one down, so cannot speak toward its content. And with respects, I believe as a work-in-progress, it specifically meets the criteria for Start class "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." as defined at WikiProject Films/Assessment.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You want it deleted? Taking this kind of personal, aren't we?  Are you that opposed to this should enough sources be provided, hypothetically speaking, or would no number or quality of sources make a difference? -- Jayron  32  19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, now, don't twist words. I was responding to Michael's statement that "corection is best done through regular editing, not deletion", which I know already. Perhaps you would prefer "I fully intended to nominate this for deletion, in full awareness of WP:BEFORE and the possibility of improving articles." If proper sourcing can be shown, I'll withdraw the nomination. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was not in any means meant to chastise the nominator (an editor whom I highly respect), but to perhaps allow a wider consideration of our processs to any new editors who join in this discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The Fangoria mention may refer to, IMDb had a rotten link in the miscellaneous links section, though it's possible the print edition had a capsule review of some kind. I tend to think this film can't meet Notability (films), probably GNG as well.  Some of the horror sites that reviewed it have been around for years, and as a horror fan I may trust their judgment, but whether they'd be considered RS...  Also not sure why SPA User:Chibiateafly was compelled to create it - both the article content and edit summary were rather vandalistic.diff Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, while the edit summaries do appear to from someone struggling under lack of knowledge, they seem almost hoping for helpful guidence. Vandals usually are quite destructive and bitey. Perhaps he'll come back and work in other areas.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep being released in three countries isn't enough to assert notability? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The significant coverage independent of the subject is true, but it is a matter of if the sources are reliable.  My opinion is that they are not.  The closest is the review from Bloody Disgusting.  The rest do not seem to be in the least authoritative. Erik (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With respects, while indicating as you note above, "significant coverage independent of the subject", WP:RS also counsels "in context to what is being sourced", in accepting that low-budget genre films will not receive the same press as do their big-budget brothers. I believe in this case WP:V has been soundly meet and the caveats in WP:RS has been met in good faith to the intentions of that guideline in context to what is being sourced.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand; that's why Bloody Disgusting is tolerable. A film like this, though, is still a concerted effort, and citing something like this for it strikes me as incredibly strained.  I'm not casting any particular !vote for this AFD, anyway, just saying my piece. :) Erik (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Original title was Avalanche Run, , .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am dismayed to find that this informative article regarding a somewhat obscure low-budget horror film is being nominated for deletion. Already, the article has been reduced to a mere skeletal retelling of the plot which does nothing for the avid C grade horror enthusiast. Previously, it was generous and informative as to not only the plot, but also some particularly relevent observations of popular culture. Granted, it is a low-budget film and has not received any publicity. Therefore it is understandable that there can be few outside references. It truly is a fact of, if you have seen the movie and written about it, you are probably the first to do so. Wikipedia is often the only place where people can get access to information about their interests. For a horror film enthusiast, the information provided in this article would have been appreciated greatly. The detailed description of the film and it's characters and themes was enticing enough for this film-lover to watch Ice Queen. I'd say some people need to get off their high horse, get over themselves and relax. No-one was getting hurt by this article. In fact, I feel it was a truly worthy piece of cinematic literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinchanscrayon (talk • contribs) 00:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)  — Shinchanscrayon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please understand, as helpful to a horror film enthusist as all that additional information might have been, it was just too much. Hopefully though, enough is retained that will encourage readers to look for the much more available elsewhere.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I once thought that Wikipedia was "The Free Encyclopedia", a place where anyone could share their thoughts on a certain topic. I know know that I was lied to. Wikipedia is a sinister society of people who have nothing better to do than destroy things children have worked tirelessly on. The Ice Queen wikipedia page was once a 2700 word masterpiece..now it has been reduced to rubble, nothingness. I and the people the world will not stand for this discrimination. Whoever deeted the previous article had absolutey NO right to do so. Is it not a common known fact that destruction of something that does not belong to you is known as vandalism...even murder. Therefore Wikipedia should definately think about what they have done and should restore the artice to its previous, glorious state. If this is not done I can tell you that you wil never hear the end of us. As of now a facebook page dedicated to bringing back the previous Ice Queen wikipedia page is spreading throughout cyberspace. it wont be ong now until a great many people are aware of thehate crime that is happening and I can assure you that those people will never use your wikipedia site again. Think of what that would to to you reputation. So I ask you Wikipedia people, reconsider, you will make many people very happy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubbatomkins  (talk • contribs)  20:47, January 7, 2010  (UTC)  — Tubbatomkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note the Facebook group. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. First, abuse of an article page is not grounds to delete the article, so the fact that the article has gotten overwhelmed, even repeatedly, by plot summary is not a rationale for deletion. That said, I don't the article currently meets WP:GNG. However, my question is with WP:NOTFILM and the two major reviews criteria. IMDB lists 14 reviews of the film. There are no major-name reviews on the list that jump out of me; however, I can't say that all of the reviews aren't notable. Is anybody familiar enough with any of them to say they are notable?
 * At the end of the day, though, I'm in limbo. I neither endorse deletion of this article right now nor endorse keeping the article on an ongoing basis. If anything, I say rescue the article/find sources/do provenance on the reviews. If those fail, then let's open a second AfD in a month or three. —C.Fred (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there are no major name reveiws because it is a C grade horror film to beguin with. Our wikipedia was the most descriptive plot outline and summary you will ever find on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayley jane111 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If your original research was the best source available on the film, that's a good reason to delete the article. —C.Fred (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage in the places that actually review low budget horror films.  D r e a m Focus  20:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The best reference I can find is this, but it seems to be generated from a database. The only thing that could possibly establish notability would be these reviews, but I don't think they do. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With respects, the "database" to which you refer is InBaseline, a subsidiary of the New York Times Company. It's reliable. Further, another reliable source linked from the Times page is All Movie Guide. Jason Buchanan is one of their reviewers. Low-budget genre films will be reviewed in low-budget sites that do just that.  They do not get coverage in major sources. Sources are allowed to be considered in context to what is being sourced.  And as an aside, its original title was Avalanche Run, , .   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * 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.