Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder One (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The result was withdrawn Also, please be nice to fellow editors - we all have off days when finding sourcing. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Murder One (film)

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

A movie with "one" review at RottenTomatoes, and a "reception" from a wordpress page. The movie exists, but the best I could find were a few lines here, other sources are more like this one or this one. Not enough to show notability. Fram (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Rotten Tomatores reviews do not automatically even add towards desired number of reviews, and we have no real good realibl sources on this work at all. Not every film commerically made is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - neither assertion nor evidence of notability. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, 2 reviews. One by a Rotten Tomatoes critic and another at TV Guide .  Donald D23   talk to me  18:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just a quick Google search found reviews from the LA Times and the New York Times. Maybe people could consider doing a decent Google search before !voting in future? --Michig (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there are sufficient reviews of this as noted above. In addition, I found this review from The South Bend Tribune and this one by The Atlanta Constitution, which are both fairly in-depth and cover the subject matter significantly. I have expanded the article with these and believe it's enough to pass WP:NFILM. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't understand why this was nominated. It's a big WP:BEFORE failure. There was widespread coverage and reviews when it was released - heck not to mention the legal action when they fired the director. Has a widely-released North American film ever been not notable - even the bombs? I've expanded the article as well as adding further references. There's no doubt it needed improving - but try and improve before deleting. Perhaps User:Fram can withdraw - or expand on what is the issue with this topic? Can User:Orangemike review his delete, with the subsequent improvements. As for User:Johnpacklambert, you have once again cast out the first stone on a nomination without doing a proper BEFORE. You are a regular here - you should know better. Nfitz (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to think Orangemike, an admin with 15+ years WP experience, may want to reconsider his !vote in light of the recent expansion and nom withdrawal from Fram, but I have no hope whatsoever that JPL will reconsider. Still, this in all likelihood with end with a keep as it stands, so I guess it is inconsequential. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Witthdrawn as nominator (can't close it, there are delete votes). Just a few points: I did do a "before" search, as can be seen in the nom. When doing my search again, I see that I somehow missed the LA Times review, which I should have seen. The other newspaper reviews don't appear in my results. "Has a widely-released North American film ever been not notable - even the bombs? " Probably not, but I had no indication at all that this movie was ever widely released and not a very limited release instead. All in all, a clearly notable film, but this was not clear at all from the article and (apart from that one review I should have noticed) not clear from my "before" search either, perhaps because after the initial release it was all but forgotten. Still, should not have been an AfD. Fram (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I found the reviews I mentioned by searching for "Murder One" "Henry Thomas" as the title alone will give a lot of irrelevant results. I can see that you did a WP:BEFORE - the two delete !voters however showed no evidence of having done anything. --Michig (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I definitely see the problem at the time of nomination, as it cited no reliable sources at all, but the article's been improved significantly since. The challenge is that not every database offers equal access to every newspaper in existence — a person who searches Newspapers.com is not going to find Globe and Mail or Toronto Star hits that way, for example, and a person who searches ProQuest's Canadian Newsstream collection is not going to find any non-Canadian coverage that way, because each database can only find coverage from papers that it has in its collection to search — so I'd suggest not piling on Fram, who obviously acted in good faith based on the resources they had access to. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fram is an experienced editor who is more than capable of checking historic news sources (which are free via the wikipedia library to experienced editors) although seemingly only the easy-access google books/news sources where searched. I can understand some people could forget about, or not (yet) have access to newspapers.com et al, but Fram PRODded within 2 hours of creation and sent to discussion a few hours after that, so not really affording time for others to develop it a little more. This is academic anyway as Fram has, in all fairness, accepted this in the withdrawal above and the conclusion now seems inevitable. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't say, User:Bearcat, that I'm particularly familiar with User:Fram - but a newspaper.com search found evidence of the movie opening in the spring, as well as a widespread release across other parts of North America in the fall, with lots of reviews. A Proquest search through Wikipedia would at least let you see the Globe and Star hits, without being able to open them, if you toggled on "Show results outside my library's subscription". There's more than enough information readily available to avoid nominating. But we all have off-days. Even then, I don't think it's best practice be nominating Canadian articles without having good access to Canadian databases. I'm more concerned though that User:Johnpacklambert keeps on voting Delete with little evidence of Before, despite their current sanction on creating AFDs (and I'm surprised that User:Orangemike hasn't reviewed their vote - but I've no concerns in that direction either). Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 13 March 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.