Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Flick


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Killer Flick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Non-notable cast, and the claims that it won "Best Picture at the Pomona Film Festival" and was reviewed by the LA Times appear to fail WP:V. There's coverage in unreliable sources, but even this, which proves that it was released on DVD, fails to mention any awards. There's a passing mention here or there, such as, but no in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Orphaned since November 2006 as well. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a notable movie. DVD Talk is actually a reliable source, but it's the only review of the film out there to my knowledge. I'll try and have a look and report back here.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found the LA Times review that is mentioned in the article, but it looks like local coverage of a film that never left Los Angeles.  If nobody else can find national coverage, I think this is probably non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... it had left Los Angeles. It had a release on Brazilian television as "Golpe Mortal", and a DVD premiere in Netherlands in 2005.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Portugese:
 * Portugese:
 * Portugese:
 * Portugese:
 * Portugese:
 * Portugese:
 * Portugese:
 * Portugese:


 * Keep per meeting WP:NF. We have a 1998 film that received recognition and coverage upon its release and later international distribution. We do not expect every film to have the coverage as do big studio, big financed, highly touted blockbusters, just so long as inclusion criteria are met. Will the article build much beyond a short start class? Perhaps not... but it serves the project and its readers quite well.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LA Times is local coverage. The only thing approaching non-local coverage is the DVD Talk source. Kindly point me to some evidence of the film getting coverage. Rotten Tomatoes, although it has a page on the film, has NO reviews. That's pretty indicative of a clear failure of WP:GNG, which you're touting it as passing. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The LA Times is not local coverage. It's one of the biggest newspapers in the USA, covering a metro region of 18m people (bigger than the Netherlands), and based in what's arguably the world's entertainment capital; this isn't somebody's hometown newspaper doing a "local boy made good" story. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the film is from LA, it's local coverage. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd have to show that the film is LA in origin and that this wasn't just the place where it first screened. If it is, then it could be considered local coverage. If not, then it'd be considered a usable RS. The problem is that most films will have a minimal amount of business done in LA, either through screening or something similar. However if you can show that the entire film was made, produced, and created by someone who lives in LA most of the time, then it could be considered local coverage. That's incredibly hard to prove, especially with a lot of the older films like this. Now as far as RT reviews go, there is a list here that shows that LA Weekly reviewed this once upon a time- we just can't find the actual review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reliable source reviews I've seen other than DVD Talk come from LA. It got a mention in a book, but nothing more than a namedrop. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Luke, a hometown gazette or a small-town newspaper without a worldwide audience would fit the creiteria of "local". That Rotten Tomatoes does not share all reviews is their fault, not Wikipedia's. We do not control editorial practices or content of websites outside these pages, nor do we expect a film to remain forever in the headlines. WP:NTEMP. .  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you on about? The only sources I've seen have either come from LA or have been unreliable, apart from the DVD Talk one. You still haven't given anything to satisfy notability whatsoever, and your babble about "editorial practices" is irrelevant. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your repeated complaint above has been that some site outside of Wikipedia does not show reviews. We do not control their practices. And rather than "babble" I looked at the Wayback Machine's archive of the (now-dead) official film site from 2001, and found indicators that it was also received a Film Threat review, bringing me back to WP:NTEMP. I am still digging, but the film's simple and non-unique title {Killer + Flick) gives a whole lot of false positives in searches. Thank you for your courtesy.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said that Rotten Tomatoes didn't list much, which is indicative of a non-notable film. That still rings true, as it wasn't the only place I'd looked for sources (and I didn't just search "Killer Flick" either.) I'd like to see some actual evidence of the Film Threat review; the fact that it was an AOL Member's site that claimed to be official (or was official) makes me dubious of any claims; it's the 2000s equivalent of Blogspot, to put it mildly. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No website lasts forever, specially those set up by independent filmmakers on a tight budget. Sure, it would be terrific if low-budget indies had the same promotion budgets as their big studio big-budget brethren, but we need to consider instead if they have just enough to meet inclusion criteria which do not demand that level. I am still looking for the 14-year-old Film Threat review, but they have nearly 900 such archived, so it might take a few minutes. It's not that big a deal that an "official website" of a low budget independent film was placed on a free site nor that it is inactive over a decade later, but looking for and finding archives of it lead me to clues about where else this was written up back then. Personally, I do not doubt it screened internationally and had a 2005 DVD release in the Netherlands. I applaud the filmmakers for seeking and getting distribution through Bridge Entertainment Group and Vanguard Cinema, and will look for non-English reviews as well as seeking the archives of 15-year-old reviews.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And don't get me wrong Luke... I applaud your WP:BEFORE and am simply digging further under WP:NTEMP.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but AOL Member's was the equivalent of Blogspot. I'm not doubting that it screened internationally either; but I'm not aware of how that actually conveys notability (some spectacularly non-notable films turn up in weird places.) I'm glad you are looking for the sources (I know I'm being a little more aggressive than I should be, but people misrepresenting what I say does annoy me a lot; particularly when I've been up for 15-and-a-half hours, and went cycled 10 miles in that time) and I hope you have rather more success than I did. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per MichaelQSchmidt.  Vanquisher.UA  (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:MOVIE as this film is widely available on DVD and has been reviewed by several well-known critics as evidenced by the sources within the article. Dolovis (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2013 (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.