Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho From Texas


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Psycho From Texas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Fails WP:GNG.
 * Fails WP:NFILM because subject fails all 5 parameters of WP:NFO.
 * No reliable sources - Also WP:UGC...WP articles cannot use other WP articles for sources because WP is a user-edited source and is so considered unreliable in and of itself.
 * Not-notable because of participants - only one involved person has a WP article.
 * Was nominated for WP:PROD, tags were removed from article with no improvements or changes. Shearonink (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shearonink (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shearonink (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Variety has a review. I will add it. This and existing coverage should be sufficient. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. I added the following sources to the article:
 * Regional Horror Films, 1958-1990: A State-by-State Guide with Interviews by Brian Albright, McFarland & Co (2012)
 * Tales from the Cult Film Trenches: Interviews with 36 Actors from Horror, Science Fiction and Exploitation Cinema by Louis Paul, McFarland & Co (2008)
 * "Linnea Laughs Last" from Femme Fatales vol 4 no 1 (1995)
 * "Texas Terror" from the New York Daily News (1990)
 * Variety's Film Reviews: 1981-1982
 * The Creature Features Movie Guide Strikes Again by John Stanley, Creatures at Large Press (1994)
 * Deep Red Horror Handbook by Chas Balun, Fantaco Enterprises (1989)
 * I believe that this is enough to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep satisfied by sourcing. Blythwood (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Taking a look at the parameters at WP:NFO, I'm going to go through them one by one. A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:
 * The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
 * A single review in one major entertainment publication does not signify notability. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
 * Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
 * The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
 * Are any of the articles/paragraphs/sources in-depth or non-trivial? That seems to be a No as well. Also, not notable according to any broad survey of film critics. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
 * Not that I am aware of... Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
 * This is another No. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
 * No major awards. No major horror movie/horror film festival awards, no Golden Raspberries, not even a Worst Movie of the Year or whatever. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
 * Again, this is a no. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
 * Anything out there that says it is being taught as a subject?...again, no. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And then there's the Inclusionary criteria... Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. Some inclusionary criteria to consider are:
 * The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" etc. This parameter should not be too widely construed, as any film could claim a unique accomplishment such as "Only film where seven women in an elevator carry yellow handbags."
 * No. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.
 * No. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.
 * That's another No. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio."
 * Another No. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

So, does the movie Psycho from Texas fulfill any of these parameters? Does it fulfill more than one?
 * In my opinion it does not. YMMV but just because a movie is mentioned in passing in a book, just because a movie is mentioned in a newspaper or gets a paragraph establishing facts but not notability in a book...none of that is enough to make the movie notable. Not every movie is notable, not every actor is notable, not every director is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. So, my thoughts are, that, according to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, this movie is not notable so that's still a Delete from me. Shearonink (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Meanwhile, notability means that a topic needs multiple independent reliable sources discussing the subject, directly and in detail. Those criteria have clearly been met. Also, you don't get an extra Delete !vote if you're the nominator. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the WP:NFO criteria have been met. It is true that multiple reliable sources have mentioned the film, have stated the facts but these various sources have not discussed the film in meaningful detail. Most of the refs basically consist of bare-bones movie listings.
 * Also, I wasn't voting a second time, I simply wanted to make my thoughts on the matter crystal-clear. I just now added a "still" to show that my opinion re: the film's notability hasn't been changed by the various arguments posted above. But, as I said above, YMMV, and the matter, as always, is decided according to editorial consensus. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The nominator does not vote delete at all as the nomination itself counts as their delete. Also an article about a film does not have to pass any of the criteria at WP:NFILM if it already passes WP:GNG. The criteria of WP:NFILM are a rough guide as to whether a film is likely to have enough coverage to enable an article to be created but they are not notability criterion in and of themselves although they are often used to show that a film is very likely to be notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well. I thought I had well-enough explained with my post of 5:17, 22 March that my 3:15 22 March post was simply stating my mind hadn't been changed by the various arguments posted by other editors (and since I had retroactively added the still) but apparently not. So, to make it very clear I struck through the sentence.
 * And, in the nomination I already mentioned that in my opinion the film Psycho from Texas didn't fulfill WP:GNG but I'm glad you brought that up - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Has this film received significant coverage... Sure, it's received some coverage but the majority of what I've seen about the movie has been basically a movie listing with cast & crew, like something one might see in a TV Guide along with maybe a sentence or two about how terrible the movie is. A mention in a newspaper or magazine or in a book doesn't make a subject notable, extensive coverage does. Shearonink (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - a cult film that used shockvertising before that word was even coined, as found in significant coverage. Bearian (talk)


 * 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.