Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan 9 (2015 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 after improvements to sourcing. ansh 666 07:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Plan 9 (2015 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I put a proposed deletion (PROD) on this article, giving my reason as "There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references aren't even about this film, others are not significant coverage." The creator of the article, Goodbadnugly, removed the proposal, giving as reason that the film derives notability from its connection to the earlier film Plan 9 from Outer Space of which it is a take-off, and from "the presence of notable internet personalities". As anyone familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards will know, a subject is not considered to be notable because of association with other notable subjects, and must have evidence of notability in its own right.

My reason for this nomination is the same as the reason for my earlier deletion proposal, but here is a more detailed account of why the cited sources don't do it. Out of the eight sources cited, four are about the earlier film, and don't even mention this one. Not only are the other four not significant coverage, but also none of them is an independent reliable source either. Two of them are at www.horrorsociety.com, which not only publishes user-submitted content, but also says "You want to promote your movie, do it here." Another source is at letterboxd.com, which reproduces film data from TMDb (www.themoviedb.org); TMDb consists entirely of user-submitted content, and appears to be if anything an even less reliable source than IMDb, of which it is clearly an imitation. That leaves just one more cited source, which is at plan9movie.com, and I think the URL says it all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , take another look? I was able to dig some decent sourcing out of Google. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, so I looked at the new sources you have added. I started describing each of them, as follows.
 * (1) An interview with the director on a web site which calls itself a "fanzine", and that looks like exactly what it is. (2) A brief article which mentions the original film and a "biopic" about the director of this one, but devotes just two short sentences to this film itself. (3) A page about the film which includes a link to book to see the film, and gives some information about it, much of it quoted from the director, on a web site which "allows arts community partners to enter events". (4) A page on a local news site for a town (Roanoke, VA) announcing that the film is being shown in that town. (5) A fairly brief note about the film on a web site called "cinemablend" I have been unable to find anything significant about that web site, apart from its own "about" page, which is full of promotional hype, such as telling me that "its [sic] the only place to catch up on the pop culture [I'm] already excited about", but doesn't give me much actual information. Even if the web site is a significant reliable source (which it may be, but I'm not convinced) its brief page about this film is not substantial coverage.

At this point I decided I couldn't afford the amount of time it would take to write similar individual accounts of the rest of the sources, but none of them looked better than those I have described above. All credit to Tokyogirl79 for putting in the work to find a number of sources to add, but as far as the quality, rather than the quantity, of sources is concerned, if that is the best that an experienced and reliable editor such as Tokyogirl79 can manage to find, them I'm afraid it strengthens, rather than weakens, my impression that the film does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The SF Signal is pretty well thought of - it has actually won three Hugo Awards for its work, It's generally seen as reliable. It's an interview, so that's mostly just there for people to pull from in the future if they want to expand it. The main sourcing that I'm looking at as far as notability goes are the reviews in Screen Anarchy (formerly Twitch Film) and Dread Central, as they're both considered to be reliable sources as far as film and horror content are concerned. Dread Central's actually a fairly major website in the horror world, along side Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting. io9's article is decently sized and they're also generally seen as a reliable source as well despite the Gawker affiliation. Scream magazine looks OK - it's more of a UK thing, but it's sold on some US shelves (some light coverage of that here). In any case, the two reviews should be enough to establish notability. The local coverage is greatly depreciated on Wikipedia, so that's more something I added so that people could flesh out the article later if they wanted - they're more likely to do it with the sources if they're already on the article. As far as Cinema Blend goes, it's generally seen as reliable on here. It's used as a source in some academic texts like thi, this, this, and this, for example. It's certainly not the best possible source, but it's an OK one. I think that there's enough notability here for it to barely squeak by. Not the greatest amount, but just barely enough. (However also not so much that I'd lose a ton of sleep if it wasn't kept.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep many of the references were unreliable but now that better references have been added it can be seen that the reviews in established film reliable sources Dread Central and Screen Anarchy as well as coverage in io9 and Scream magazine enable a bare pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While the original may have had some problems, I think it just about passes notability. The film itself is pretty horrendous, however. Definitely not worth the many minutes I wasted watching it. Stui (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - As said above, the newly introduced sources, while not the most in depth, are enough to let this one barely pass the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:51, 6 February 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.