Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rust (2010 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. -- Scott (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Rust (2010 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 15:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. When I deproded this I indicated that I had found coverage, which the nominator apparently chose not to check on, also not really providing much of a deletion rationale. There is significant coverage of the film from Regina Leader-Post, The Globe & Mail, and several others. I don't know whether these would all be considered reliable sources, but coverage includes, , , , , . --Michig (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral - So, in this case, only the reviews would generally be relevant. Of the sources stated, only #3 of the above (Christian Cinema) is both a review and a reliable review site big enough to satisfy the requirements in NFILM. There are a couple of similar christian reviews I found online, but they are all fairly small blogs that aren't sufficiently reliable, I believe. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would only reviews be relevant? Articles about the making of the film are just as relevant. --Michig (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I had considered that this would have been a rare film that could have qualified during production on that grounds, but went off the usually executed notability rules on films. You are correct of course that NFILM specifically uses GNG as its base. Most of the sources are however primarily interview based, and given their vested interests, fail independent - along with much of the remaining content being synopsis (irrelevant) or functionally routine. I do think CBC (#5) passes. As to whether a merging of the two satisfies - I'm unsure. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding how "during the production process" coverage works. If the article gets created while the film is still in the production pipeline, then it's true that we do a depth test to determine whether there's enough production coverage to make it special despite not actually having been released yet — but once the film has been released, we don't run the production coverage through the wringers anymore. Once the film has been released, production coverage counts for exactly the same toward establishing notability as post-release coverage does — it doesn't necessarily always count as enough to get an unreleased film over the bar all by itself, but for a released film it has the exact same value as any other coverage. You're correct that some of Michig's sources aren't as strong as others are, but there are enough strong ones to get this over the bar and even the lesser ones aren't entirely unusable — but since the film has been released to the general public the question of whether any given piece of coverage happened before or after the release date is not relevant to the determination anymore. In actual fact, a genuinely good article about a film should, if possible, contain content and sourcing about its production process — that's obviously not always possible to do for every film, but an article should contain that kind of content if production sourcing is available to add it with. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 01:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  talk /  contribs 01:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per the coverage found by Michig.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by Michig. The interview sources aren't ideal, but can absolutely still be used as long as there are other solid sources in the mix — Q&A interviews don't carry a notability pass all by themselves if they're the only sources that can be found, but they are perfectly acceptable for use as sourcing for stray facts if there are enough quality sources elsewhere in the sourcing pool to cover off passage of WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, which there are in this instance. As I noted above, pre-release production sourcing is only weight-tested if the film is still in the production pipeline as of the time we're checking the sources — if the film has been released, as this has, then pre-release sourcing doesn't count for less than post-release sourcing anymore. And no, the fact that some of the sources are Christian-specific specialist media doesn't invalidate their use either — we certainly have to be cautious about using that kind of sourcing in some instances, such as POV political disputes, but sourcing the content of a Christian-themed film is not a case where their use would be problematic. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as detailed above so that the film passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included but the article needs much improvement/expansion Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep sources brought to discussion show that it passes WP:NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2019 (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.