Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninety Seconds


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  10:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ninety Seconds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is written by the director/producer User:Tech2012 who seems to use Wikipedia as their primary source of marketing. Only independent sources here are capsule reviews. Fails WP:NFILM and is probably eligible for WP:G11 given the WP:PUFFERY. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 17:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. Spleodrach (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Geeks of Doom is generally seen as a reliable source for independent and/or horror film reviews, so I'm counting that. The Irish Examiner also reviewed the film, which is good. The Donegal sources are a bit shaky since it's local coverage and depreciated, but I think that there's just enough for a weak keep here. To be honest, this is a picture perfect example of why editing with a conflict of interest is so frowned upon, as there was so much puffery and promotion in the article that it drowned out the usable sources that could show even a tenuous notability. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, WP:NFILM only allows for non-capsule reviews that are by nationally known critics. That's why I excluded these sources as demonstrating notability. The Irish Examiner article isn't really a review, and it isn't even clear who the author of the Geeks of Doom review is. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 10:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as per Reader of the Pack, the sources may not count as national reviews for WP:NFILM but can be considered for WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As WP:GNG states, GNG doesn't guarantee notability. There wouldn't be any point to having WP:NFILM if all you need to do is pass WP:GNG, since WP:NFILM is much more specific and rigorous than GNG. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG overrides WP:NFILM which was originally intended as a guide as to whether the film was very likely to be notable but not a stipulation of notability in and of itself, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - In-depth coverage in the Donegal papers, Geeks of Doom and the national Irish Examiner indicate the passing of WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2018 (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.