Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowboard Academy


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  00:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Snowboard Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about a direct-to-video film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show markers of significance such as notable film awards or the reception of significant coverage and analysis in media -- but this isn't showing anything of the sort, and its only references are a tangential quote about the difficulty of securing screenplay development deals in a magazine article that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this film, and a brief glancing namecheck of this film's existence in a short blurb about its producer later securing funding for an unrelated television film. And even on a search for other sources, I just can't find anything else WP:GNG-worthy -- all I'm getting is directories, VOD streamers and blogs, not real coverage about it in reliable or notability-building media outlets. There's also a bit (okay, a lot) of an advertorialized lean here, and a probable conflict of interest as it was created by the same WP:SPA who created the BLP of its producer that's also been listed for AFD below. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have more real coverage about it in real media than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: New sources have been added, but not good, reliable or notability-building ones. What's been added mainly comprises a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in an obituary of one of its cast members (thus not about the film) and reviews on unreliable and non-notable film blogs like "Mutant Reviewers" and "On Snow" — but the "has been reviewed" criterion in WP:NFILM requires still requires the reviews to come from reliable sources, meaning things like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times or RogerEbert.com, and cannot be fulfilled by just any random film blog you can find. The only new citation that's been added that's starting to get anywhere at all is a review from TV Guide, which isn't enough all by itself if the other reviewers are all non-notable bloggers. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada,  and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Bearcat - this page was created in 2005 by User:Cvene64 - who with >400 pages created is likely not an SPA. ResonantDistortion 16:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep — seems reasonably notable as one of the first feature films on snowboarding. MY OH MY 19:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "One of the first feature films on [insert subject here]" is not a notability criterion that exempts a film from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete A kind of snowboard cult-classic, but the only possibly reliable review I found (in a book called "Ski Films, a Comprehensive Guide) utterly pans it. One more in-depth review and it might be a keeper, but it was a straight-to-video so would not get noticed by most movie reviewers. (It gets 28% at Rotten Tomatoes, which is incredibly low for that site.) Again, snowboard folks might go for this, but in the annals of film it doesn't register. The section on Rudy Rupak here is totally unwarranted and un-referenced, so I'm removing that. Lamona (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed all of the un-referenced cruft, mostly about Rudy Rupak, and added that one possibly reliable but negative review. I think it's now easier to get an idea about notability. Lamona (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Edging towards Keep on this one, and good cleanup from Lamona. We have several criteria in WP:NFILM; while I concur this film does not have clear evidence that it strongly meets any one of them, there is evidence that several of the criteria are nearly or adequately fulfilled.  Including:
 * The lead cast comprises several notable actors per WP:NFO. Corey Haim did claim it as one of his hardest parts.
 * At least 3 non-blog independent reviews exist with sigcov - one is mainstream reputable, the remaining 2 are specialist publications.
 * At least 4 non-blog independent reviews exist with sigcov - two are mainstream reputable, the remaining 2 are specialist publications.
 * Criteria WP:NFO: The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema - this is one of the first movies to feature the, at the time, new craze of snowboarding.
 * Given this is film is over 25 years old and we may be unable to find print-only publications, together these should be sufficient to presume notability. Also note - the nom claims a WP:COI due to the article being created by an SPA, but this is very much not true, creator has over 14000 edits:  ResonantDistortion 20:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep: Added a second review by Scott Weinberg, though it is a capsule review he is an established film critic with professional bylines, not a "non-notable blogger." There is most likely print coverage -- while this is not sigcov and I am not claiming it is, Variety did call the film infamously bad which alludes to something, somewhere. The bulk of the promotional stuff appears to come from User:Professoranthem, not the article creator, and this should really be corrected in the initial nom. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2023 (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.