Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightmare Circus (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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nightmare Circus (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't remember how I came across this, but when I came across it in its original state it had some pretty serious notability issues. I tried to find sources to show how this film is notable outside of its director, but just couldn't find anything beyond two reviews. I redirected it as those two reviews don't show enough of a depth of coverage to show that this passes WP:NFILM. Other than these two reviews, all I can find are brief mentions of this film in passing in relation to its director. Redirects were undone by the page creator. If anyone can find additional in-depth coverage or show that this has been shown at any festivals, I'm open to withdrawing this. It's just that I can't seem to find anything under any of the titles that isn't just mentioning it in passing in relation to the director. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: In Google Books, I searched for "terror circus"|"nightmare circus"|"barn of the naked dead" 1973, and there seem to be a decent amount of results. Unfortunately, most cannot be previewed, so it is hard to tell if the coverage is significant or not. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that too, but the snippet views I found seemed to show that this was more of a brief mention in relation to the director, as most book, journal, and news articles about him would list all or some of his movies while giving a brief overview of him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The very idea of removing even trivial information to be replaced by, what, a page to the director, for what????? It makes so little sense it's absurd. Donmike10 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We have to show notability. I'm not requiring that this have as much coverage as the huge blockbusters, but we do need a little more coverage than this in reliable sources. My thing is, we need to be consistent in how we apply the rules to articles. Either the rules apply to all of them or none of them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that saying that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not really a good argument for an article's inclusion. I get frustrated with notability guidelines as well, but we have to follow them and apply them to every film. All I need is just a little more coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source that shows notability. If someone can show that this was viewed at a film festival five years after its release, even a very minor one, I'm fine with that as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. This film was included in The Encyclopedia of Fantastic Film: Alia Baba to Zombies, and we're actually debating inclusion here. This is more than simply being useful. Cult Horror Films: From Attack of the 50 Foot Woman to Zombies of Mora Tau also includes it. Donmike10 (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the two links is pretty much just a listing of films and it gives no actual indepth coverage of the movie beyond the very, very basic information such as how long it was, who filmed it, and so on. I already had the Cult Horror Films book on the article, as that actually went into depth on the movie. We need more sources that are along the lines of the Cult Horror Films book rather than books that are more of a generic database/IMDb-esque listing of various movies. Unless that list is detailing something exceedingly noteworthy, they don't really contribute to notability and are more of just a "this exists, along with these other things that exist" type of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You and I will just agree to disagree. To me, there is no rational benefit to removing potentially valuable information that could help the world, even on the tiniest degree. I can literally think of absolutely no net gain in any way to removing things like this, with definitively only the potential for loss, but we're all just built differently evidently. Donmike10 (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I can see where you're coming from with this. It's just that despite how much I'd love for Wikipedia to be more inclusive on various different subjects, we still have to go by the guidelines for notability and we have to evenly apply them to the various subjects. The degrees of notability don't have to be the same, but we have to show a depth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Horrified keep. Along with the reviews, it looks like it's in the Library of Congress, which also says it's in the Performing Arts Encyclopedia. Run for your lives. The Apocalypse must be nigh. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is, being in the LoC isn't exactly something that counts towards notability. In the past it's been shown that someone can submit something to the LoC and as long as it has a barcode or ISBN (in the case of books), it's included. That's considered to be something along the lines of a database entry. As far as encyclopedias go, that's sort of a database entry as well. Both the LoC and PAE just show that the film exists, which isn't enough to show notability. I've removed the link to Letterboxd, as the website clearly states at the top that anyone can create an account and review films, so this isn't exactly the same as a review from a website such as DVD Verdict or Fearnet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I know notability isn't inherited, but this is an early work by a notable director that has seen multiple DVD releases.  We have nothing to gain by deletion.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We still need coverage in reliable sources, as getting multiple DVD releases isn't one of the criteria towards notability. Although... it would be worth lobbying for a change in the WP:NFILM policy to ask that there be a coda that if a film is re-released on DVD multiple times (and not through self-publishing) that this count towards notability as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Opened up a discussion here about the possibility of DVD releases helping to count towards notability in the future, if anyone is interested in weighing in on that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Does a DVD release count under The film was given a commercial re-release [...] at least five years after initial release? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like it if it could count under that, but I think that this part of NFILM was written with the idea that it would be a theatrical re-release. It'd be worth arguing for this to encompass a film getting re-released onto commercial DVD (ie, a relatively mainstream distribution company- which this movie has been). If we can argue for that and have this close because of that, I'd be incredibly excited. This would set a great precedent that I could really use in future AfDs. Of course it'd have to be a completely separate admin that would make that call, as I don't want this to get nixed as a precedent because I would personally really like it if long term DVD (or respective current media format) releases could count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   01:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Theaters be dammed. In this modern world where more and more folks choose to rent DVDs or download films rather than spend their money at theaters, restricting notability to only "theatrical release" does not serve the encyclopedia nor its readers. Economic point to consider is that a "commercial re-release" indicates any release that generates commercial profit for the filmmakers or distributors. In the case of this film, we might better consider that repeated successful for-profit DVD releases is an acknowledgement of a cult following. Our issue may at another place become one of how to better define a cult following, as reviews in multiple "cult" or "genre" sources do not meet the strict definitions of RS, and usual RS are not "cult media". WP:COMMONSENSE indicates they "might be" considered as non-rs support of otherwise verifiable existence and facts of the film. But since reviews are opinion and not news or facts, as opinion we may consider their use-by-others and expertise of reviewers as long as we are not dealing with a WP:BLP. Second point toward a lasting notability is that this film has itself become part of or referenced in other film projects. But more convincing for me, is that I did find Wayback Machine archives of substantive reviews under its different release names in the genre RS Fangoria  and  which give decent support to DVD Verdict... and we do have enough supportive multiple "non-rs" speaking toward this film.     The coverage in multiple RS, its cult following, and it becoming part of enduring film history in multiple books, has convinced me that WP:NF is met.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And that, Schmidt, is why you're my Wikipedia true love when it comes to finding sources. I was hoping you'd find something! Your argument also goes a long way towards hopefully changing or adding on to policy when it comes to DVD re-releases of older films showing notability. withdrawing nomination Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:44, 15 February 2014 (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.