Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chemical King


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Chemical King

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:Notability. Google and metacritic search did not turn up any professional reviews or sources that show notability. Sources added when prod was contested do not show notability -- consensus has long held that IMDb does not show notability, the squidflicks "review" did not seem professional (and the author admitted s/he had not even watched it), and filmval.se is just a directory listing. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails all points of WP:NF. Claritas (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)




 * Delete After digging through the false positives caused by the not-too-unique title, and after looking through related searches, I was unable to find out anything more that the film exists.  It fails WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "the squidflicks "review" did not seem professional" but the criteria dosn't say the sorce must be a profesional but "# "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." I hold that squid dose meet that criteria.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhoraldo (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With respects Donhoraldo, the Squidpress review, as nice as it may be, is not on a site known for its editorial oversite. Squidpress is on a site powered by Wordpress... making Squidpress a "self published website, and appears to be a blog where the site owner posts reviews and anyone might make comments. Worse for its consideration, the "review" you cite was posted by Shelby Jones... the individual who is "the owner of Omega Squid Studios, and all of the Omega Squid Network websites!"  So... we do not have a process of editorial oversight... but simply a posting on a self-published-site by the site's owner.  Such is rarely a reliable source for Wikipedia.  However, if you are able to qualify her expertise, then it might be acceptable... such as an Roger Ebert review on Ebert's personal blog is generally acceptable for film... or a film critic at New York Times may have an "offical" Times blog and be seen as acceptable.  Barring being able to qualify Shelby Jones, bring us reviews The Sun or The Post or New York Times, or articles in Entertainment Weekly or Variety... and then it would whole different situation.  You are however, welcome to take the issue of Jones, her website, and her review on her website over to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.  If they determine that it's okay... then it's okay. -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And even if we can establish some credentials for the Squidflicks posting, there's still the problem of independence. From the review: "I recently contacted my cousin, Ellen Jones, who has been working as the producer of a new Independent Film called The Chemical King."-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:59, 7 May 2010 (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.