Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reichsführer-SS (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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Reichsführer-SS (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A largely unsourced article on a nn film. Does not meet WP:NFILM; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. Has been previously PRODed, hence the AfD nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The article only cites one very iffy source. Searching online doesn't turn up anything from reliable sources that establishes notability. This is just spam.45.64.242.124 (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: I did a search on Google, but could only find one review of the film, published in the Dread Central which unfortunately won't be enough to satisfy the criteria set forth in Notability (films), in particular the "two full-length reviews" criterion. MBlaze Lightning  10:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I did some serious digging and found a review from HorrorNews.net, which is typically seen as a reliable source on here. Horror Society is generally seen as one - I know that it's been used as a source for information in some academic works on horror. That said, the sourcing could definitely be stronger but I think that there's just enough here to squeak by. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I had seen that source as well, but wasn't sure if it would pass muster. I could switch my !vote to keep, but before pondering that possibility, I'd like to see a better source. MBlaze Lightning  06:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I frankly don't care very much what some WikiProject's ideas are about the number of "reviews" something needs to get, but this is clearly a completely marginal production with no documented impact beyond one or two niche websites. No echo in mainstream media at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Genre films are tricky. They absolutely need sourcing to establish notability, but restricting notability to only coverage in mainstream sourcing would do a huge disservice to Wikipedia and also undervalues the niche websites themselves. For example, while Dread Central is absolutely a niche website since they focus on horror, it's very major within the genre as they've won a major award in the horror world, host a film festival, give out major awards within the genre, and actually had their own movie studio. They're incredibly well respected in the horror film. Admittedly HorrorNews.net and Horror Society are less major but they're still seen as fairly important within the field and there have been academics who have used their articles as citations for scholarly publications put out through publishes such as McFarland and various university presses. To further argue the point, there are a lot of films that will really only garner genre coverage. They're seen as fairly notable as a whole, but are really only covered by the various horror outlets. Essentially, mainstream coverage alone is a poor indication of notability when it comes to genre and niche films. A complete lack of mainstream coverage can be telling, but a lack of mainstream coverage doesn't mean that something is non-notable. Basically, by this extension you could have a scholarly text receive about a dozen or more reviews from academic journals, but no coverage from mainstream press. By this standard, the book would be seen as non-notable despite having ample coverage in niche outlets. I'm not really arguing for notability for this film specifically since I do think it's borderline, but I do want to argue against the idea of mainstream press being the absolute yardstick of notability. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, no substantial independent coverage. Kierzek (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete because subject fails WP:NFILM. I'm an aficionado of cult, marginal, and weird films, as it happens, but Wikipedia is not the place where I expect to find material on and about such works. Wikipedia does not offer information indiscriminately nor is it the place where art work is promoted. -The Gnome (talk) 13:59, 13 September 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.