Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Marines (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Space Marines (film)

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

The film is not notable in the sense that there are not multiple reliable sources having significant coverage about this topic. There is a review by The Washington Post here but nothing beyond that that I could find. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging already-involved editors, , and . I had proposed deletion but Mushy Yank contested it on account of the review by The Washington Post. Started this AfD to see this through fully. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I just deproDed the page. Meets requirement for notability with significant coverage in reliable sources including a full review in The Washington Post. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  19:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You said you removed it because it had a review in The Washington Post? That does not equate plurality of reliable sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A review in the WP is enough to DEPROD a page, yes. But please read the comment I left on TP in the OldProd template. And also read the sources on the page. I've added various references. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Washington Post review was syndicated nationally; here's the review in The Newport News Daily Press. There are a lot more examples on newspapers.com. Toughpigs (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good source. Any others you can share? I can go ahead and update the article with them. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I misunderstood. Doesn't the same coverage being repeated elsewhere still count as only one source? Are there more sources that are different from the WaPo review? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:N says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. No. Just read the page. Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, you think these sources in the Wikipedia article are significant coverage. Here is a breakdown:
 * Regarding Off the Page, the film is only mentioned in passing, so it's not significant coverage.
 * For the other items, these are capsule reviews and not sufficient coverage. WP:NF says, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides..." Such guides have many films with only one sentence about them.
 * Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some coverage with critical commentary, then. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, borderline notable... I think it is fair to presume that if the WaPo wrote a full review of this 1996 film that additional coverage which would meet GNG exists. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Added some. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the sources added is for Space Cowboys and not this film, two others are what? Databases with no degree of help to the article, so that leaves one review which I couldn't read because of the paywall. And that really is only one source left in the article. It's hardly signov, my gut still tells me it's a delete unless there was something more. Govvy (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not on Space Cowboys. The Snippet is misleading. Read what I've quoted, it's about this film! (If you can't access the full page: Was Space Cowboys written by Moreland, and is it with Wirth?) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  23:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Well, the Washington Post is all I can find for reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has a "critic" review from rec.arts.movies, which is being rather generous calling that a "critical review". I don't know if this is related, but most things that come up are about the Warhammer series. I don't see enough for film notability.  Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that film is unrelated. Added some coverage though. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Besides the Washington Post and Psychotronic Video reviews, there are also reviews in the Malay Mail, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald and the Hickory Daily Record. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as exercising WP:AGF as I don't have access to Proquest for the three above mentioned reviews but including them with the Washington Post and smaller coverage there seems to be enough for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

:D))))... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  07:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Fair enough, apologies, apparently there are other users who think it's not undue....
 * Comment I am happy to see a better article on wikipedia for this film since I raised the issue's on the project. I however am not seeing the best sources still. Besides the Washington Post, I really don't see enough from the other sources provided. So I really am still on the fence. Of the sources posted by ; the first Malay Mail, that seems to be talking about something else? Hint of Clinton scandal in `Wag The Dog? I am unable to verify the next Hawaii Tribune-Herald one, nor the Hickory Daily Record due to paywall. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The review notes: "The movie might be just the thing, though, for people who've overdosed on NBC's effusive Olympics coverage or who just want a pleasant little brain purge to take their minds off serious matters. "Space Marines" involves death, terror, treachery and the threat of apocalypse, yet it's all kept on a sort of funsy level. An on-again off-again facetious approach is usually deadly in films, and "Space Marines" puts tongue in cheek mainly to disguise implausibilities in the plot. Even so, it's for the most part kookily entertaining. For a low-budget film, the explosions are pretty and the rocket ships moderately impressive. Wheee!"  The review notes: ""Space Marines" (Republic, rated R for excessive violence, sex and swearing) has impressive special effects for a relatively low-budget, direct-to-video sci-fi epic. But, this poor man's "Star Trek" has little more to offer than a basic, good-vs.-bad-guys plot with lots of ham overacting. ... The film-titled Space Marines begin a rescue-and-arrest mission that quickly turns into a volatile political situation. Ordered to return to base, but aware of the mounting threat to the galaxy's survival, the elite Marine Corps stages its own vigilante plan. It's easy to guess the predictable outcome, which includes a daring mutiny and eventual pirate confrontation. There's much futuristic space hardware in the meandering movie, including a spacecraft resembling a giant electric shaver. Even with that, over all, "Space Marines" hasn't got much buzz."  The review notes: "In the future, Sgt. Zach (Billy Wirth), a politician (James Shigeta) and his assistant (Candy Huffman) are taken hostage by Col. Frasier (John Pyper-Ferguson, who adds a welcome sense of humor), a Marine turned space pirate. This sadistic, talkative long haired villain with a sidekick named Gunther and a gang that resembles bikers, cuts off a captives ear and blows up others with surgical implants. A grinning Edward Albert leads a rescue mission and argues a lot with a commander (Meg Foster). Although there are space ships and space battles, most of the slo mo deaths, explosions and gun battles take place in a James Bond type cavern/factory. Also with subplots, silicone packed hologram bar dancers and an especially weak ending. Surprisingly, it was made in Dallas - by the director of Private Wars (PV #17)." <li> The review notes: "He sends highly-trained Space Marines, led by Captain Gray (Edward Albert), to stop the pirates' evil plans. And if you love fighting stuff and laser guns, then Space Marines is for you.  The special effects, however, are not too exciting. There is nothing extravagant about it.  The spaceships look like gigantic electric razors and the aircraft seems to have came out of a cereal box. Although veteran Meg Foster is the biggest name in this film, his performances did not stand out. Billy Wirth, who plays a not so bright Marine, is worth watching. Pyper-Ferguson plays an over-the-top performance as the pirate leader."</li> <li> The article notes: "If he ever got into a position of consequence in this business, Matthew Trotter vowed, he'd shoot a film in Texas. With Space Marines, a sci-fi action flick, he's been doing just that in a Farmers Branch warehouse since May 9. ... In from Los Angeles for the shoot were Billy Wirth (The Lost Boys), Meg Foster (They Live), James Shigeta (Die Hard), Jay P. Ferguson (Unforgiven) and Edward Albert (Getting Even). Local actors in the cast include Sean McGraw, Sean Hennigan and Angie Bolling. For the interiors, construction coordinator Byron Autrey and his crew reworked some of the sets from the failed TV pilot Island City."</li> </li> <li> EBSCO Information Services provides an abstract-only record, not a full text of the review.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Space Marines to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.