Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable film, could only find a single review (of questionable notability). All other references are just minor mentions. Also full of original research CiphriusKane (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Here is the dropbox link of the pdf printout for then coverage from the reliable source known as Daytona News Journal report: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j7vviqb565dfddk/Kingdom%20of%20Dust%20Daytona.pdf?dl=0 that clearly described the facts of the premiere. The original URL no longer works due to the dire funding issues here in US local news across the country. The pdf printout downloaded from dropbox is from Factiva. I beg for mercy and can kowtow to the nominator if this make them happy. Please keep this page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Good morning Sir! Was the comparison to Buried really not supported in the "60 Minutes With" text? "The low budget constraints are visible here within the one set, but much like (the bigger budget) ‘Buried‘ which was predominantly filmed in a far smaller set, the limitations do not hinder the progression of the narrative." Thanks. Supermann (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The comparison was presented in the WP article without proper context and in my view was deceptive. The comparison between the films was to how the narrative unfolded: "the limitations do not hinder the progression of the narrative." but the statement that I removed made it seem like the comparison was related to the quote which was from the following paragraph CiphriusKane (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you have improved it without removing Buried? "Deceptive" is a very strong way to put it. Are we back at not assuming good faith? I thought the author was coherent and did not hinder my reading comprehension. Both are quotes essentially. I just didn't want to make it too long, so I paraphrased it. And I don't think I took his words out of context. Ultimately, it doesn't seem like he was UPE and tried to give a 5 out of 5 for Hogan or the movie. Supermann (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What has UPEs got to do with anything? And yes, it was deceptive, as the way it was written it made it look like the comparison to Buried was about the acting rather than the narrative. And I am getting quite fed up of being accused of assuming bad faith every time we disagree CiphriusKane (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not an out of context comparison to acting. It's a comparison to the whole movie experience. UPE has to do with COI. I didn't "original research" this 60 Minutes With review. Djm-leighpark found the URL. And I saw Buried last night. I only comment on things I have experienced. And we agree to disagree. I wouldn't use terms like deceptive to describe another editor. I have not used such term in any of my interactions. All I want to do is to sing Kumbaya with my fellow Wikipedians. Supermann (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * UPE stands for Undisclosed Paid Editor (WP:UPE). Paid editing is a conflict of interest, but not all conflicts of interest are paid editing. Someone cannot be a paid editor, disclosed or undisclosed, if they are not editing the articles in question here on Wikipedia, so UPE has nothing to do with the author of a review on another website. You should understand this already, as it's been explained to you repeatedly (as early as 2017). ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When one is on the receiving end of wikipedia:casting aspersions and Harassment by fellow Wikipedians, I would like to do everything I can to prove I am not UPE. Supermann (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - oddly, despite not being a copy at Archive.org, there is a copy of that Dayton reference right now in the Google Cache here, which I've archived at Archive.org here. Nfitz (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Appreciate it. Local news has been dying for a long time now. Supermann (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Spending some time myself looking for significant reception or reviews turns up nothing else. The one review in the article doesn't look to pass RS, especially since I cannot determine the editorial standards of the website—and even if it does, it's not enough. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy Friday. While I understand where you are coming from, the movie has now been re-titled as Behind Enemy Lines: Baghdad and made available on various US streaming platforms (not sure about Canada). Vudu released it on July 6, 2021, a decade after it first came out, according to Vudu - Behind Enemy Lines: Baghdad Heath Jones, Stephen Hogan, Dhaffer L'Abidine, Elyes Gabel, Watch Movies & TV Online. Roku vaguely put it in 2021 per How to watch and stream Behind Enemy Lines: Baghdad - 2021 on Roku. Per Wikipedia:Notability (films) - Wikipedia, this should qualify as "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." Also available at Behind Enemy Lines: Baghdad - Movies on Google Play, https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Enemy-Lines-Elyes-Gabel/dp/B099P52Z6H, Buy Behind Enemy Lines: Baghdad - Microsoft Store. Many thanks for your time and consideration. Have a great weekend. Supermann (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Searching under that name provides no new reviews or other information that would help establish notability. Links to storefronts and streaming listings does not advance establishment of notability. The cited point at the notability guideline is for establishing that sources likely exist if not immediately found through the internet, i.e. paper sources might exist, but the sources do still need to exist in the end. I suspect they do not in this case. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to take up your time to search for reviews. If producing/distributing films is easy, none of us would be here writing wikipedia. Instead we would go to Hollywood and make millions. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That film notability guideline also says, "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." I think I am definitely taking words out of context, but I now understand why the Amazon URL features Elyes Gabel. Supermann (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Being added to online streaming platform(s) after the fact is not a "re-release". Online streaming is a form of home video; it's not a re-release -- it's just broadening the home-viewing market. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even the Oscars now accept nominations from streaming platforms and have awarded films that never got shown in the physical movie theaters. Times have changed thanks to the pandemic. Please see 94aa_rules.pdf (oscars.org). Thanks. Supermann (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop WP:BLUDGEONING, side-stepping, and posting irrelevant walls of text. Being added to online streaming platform(s) after the fact is not a "re-release", it's just broadening the market, the same as with any form of home video. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral: *Weak keep (maybe). May just scrape satisfying WP:NFOE criteria 2 due to recent commerical Amazon Prime (US) Release.  The best two reviews I've fouund online seem to be: ( Richards November 26, 2015) (mentioned above) and ("60MWDave" https://60minuteswith.co.uk/film-and-tv/review-hostage/).  World Catalog notes released for digital streaming 30 April 2020: .  Has mentions on discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 6.  The Daytona screening seems local and likely set up by director, but I may be wrong.  If deleted just might be TOOSOON. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for finding the 60MinutesWith review. It's not too soon if you think of the decade since and before. Daniel Pearl, Kenji Goto, James Foley (journalist), etc. May them RIP. Supermann (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On reflection I have decided to remove my !weak keep vote and will slide to neutral; I might be inclined to go delete possible TOOSOON. But I've certainly got better things to do than concern myself with the nuances. 09:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment on the reviews The nom and myself have commented that the Richards review from BluePrintReview (not to be confused with the publication that has a Wikipedia article) is of questionable notability. The 60 Minutes With... Podcast also seems to be of questionable notability. Reviews to establish notability for a film themselves have a bar of notability to meet, see WP:NFSOURCES. I cannot find an editorial board for the former, which doesn't allow establishment of a reliable publication process. The latter is noted to be a team of hobbyists, which lends itself to fail as a reliable source for reviews to establish notability. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blueprintreview does not even cite any sources on its own creation. It is not even as notable as this film itself. It should be AfD and yield the spot to Blueprintrev which still publishes to this month. Yes, the Blueprintrev I did cite is not the NYTimes for sure, but considering Justin Richards' review of the film, 2.5 out of 5 stars, one can tell he wasn't bought by the production company/distributor or there is Chequebook journalism here. Not sure why we keep this dark world view of guilty of being unrealiable until proven reliable. A simple solution is to watch the film and see if the reviews' unflattering description is merited. But I guess we just won't do that. Instead, we have to debate about reliable sources endlessly. This is fundamentally wrong in my view. Dave at "60 Minutes With" also says, "None of us get paid for this, and it is a hobby that we all do because of our love of movies, video games, music and live events." And that's exactly my passion too, though probably not live events, given the tickets are expensive. Supermann (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that would constitute original research CiphriusKane (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That meaning Blueprintreview that doesn't cite sources? Yes. It's original research thru and thru. Supermann (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "A simple solution is to watch the film and see if the reviews' unflattering description is merited." This would constitute original research CiphriusKane (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." It doesn't say to completely ignore or rule out watching the film which is the primary source. Supermann (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As for your "citations needed" on "With footage from BBC Motion Gallery and Getty Images, the movie was filmed at Shepperton Studios of England," it's in the movies' end credits. As it rolls, it says, "Special thanks to Christopher Gibson & BBC Motion Gallery; Josh Rucci & Getty Images...Filmed at Shepperton Studios, England." As said before, I don't comment on things I haven't seen. Supermann (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  scope_creep Talk  22:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Self-published web sources (bloggish review sites, personal film-review sites, user-contribution sites [that don't even give last name of the so-called "reviewer"]) are not reliable independent coverage. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient coverage from any major review sites or other reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:30, 18 November 2021 (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.