Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightmare on Film Street


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Nightmare on Film Street

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. This is a website with no indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. It declares a bunch of self-defined self-awarded firsts where that claim appears sourced but isn't. Except for one, any of the sources that mention them in the ref section text are where their on site is the "reference"  Found only 1 few-sentence mention of them by independent sources in the listed references. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 03:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Best recognition is a '12th best podcast' from a Vairety listsicle. That's not enough in light of WP:GNG/WP:NWEB/WP:NCOMPANY/etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet to become notable. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia does not indiscriminately accept every award that exists as an instant notability clincher — we only extend that to major awards that can be shown as notable by virtue of garnering media coverage in sources independent of themselves (e.g. Oscars, Emmys, Canadian Screen Awards, etc.), and not to awards that have to be sourced to the awarding organization's or the recipient's own self-published content about themselves because media coverage is non-existent. That is, the award has to itself be demonstrable as a notable award before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the awards here are of the latter type, not the former, and the article is otherwise very overdependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, with virtually no third party coverage about the podcast being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards nomination is a major accolade among the Film Community and is used as Accolade reference in many comparable Wikipedia pages, including Joe Bob Briggs, M Knight Shyamalan, John Walsh, Karen Gillan, House of 1000 Corpses, and others. Suggest adding improvement tags for 'additional citations for for verification. and that This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Kimmikillzombie (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a massive difference between an award that can be listed for completionism's sake in an article that's already adequately referenced as having strong notability claims and strong sourcing, and an award that can actually constitute a topic's article-clinching notability claim in and of itself. M. Night Shyamalan, for example, is in no sense depending on "Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards" as his notability claim — dude's got Oscar nominations under his belt, and would have a Wikipedia article on that basis even if the Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards didn't exist at all. So no, the fact that his article happens to list a couple of Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award nominations does not mean that an unrelated topic gets to claim that it's notable specifically because of a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award nomination — an award can only be a notability claim for its recipients if it's an award that demonstrably receives enough GNG-worthy media coverage to demonstrate that the award is a notable one, and cannot be a notability claim for its recipients if you have to depend on the award's own self-published website about itself to source the claim because media coverage is non-existent. And no, we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because somebody theorizes that better sources might exist than anybody has actually found — once notability has been questioned, you have to show that the necessary reliable sources to salvage the article with definitely do exist to get an article kept. Please see But there must be sources!. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 2 July 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.