Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cry (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. Tone 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cry (film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article asserts $21,000 in takings in four cinemas.  rt has one minor review listed.  No way this passes Notability_(films) Phil153 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This thing fails notability guides. 65.60.203.137 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. NO notability, little content, doesn'st even say in particular what this is about.  Well, OK - it's about "an urban legend" at the time of my !vote - which one?  There are legion urban legends - Snopes, Mythbusters, and alt.folklore.urban are but three things dedicated to finding the truth behind them all! -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Keep in light of recent changes. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about La Llorona. Juzhong (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a very notable movie. Keep - in light of the expanded article and new sources. Wandering Courier (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest of keeps as I found PLENTY that showed notability since its release to DVD and have been expanding and sourcing the article since I found it at AfD. I ask those who opined delete to re-visit the artilce. Its now a keeper.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While MQ above has done excellent work on the article, it simply does not meet the guidelines at Notability_(films). I looked at about 60 of the sources provided and none of them meet the automatic inclusion criteria for films, while all of them fall under the category of trivial coverage as detailed in the link above.  Without guidelines I'd keep it but it seems to fail our guidelines badly absent evidence otherwise. Phil153 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: how much more significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject do you require, as I have found dozens. Far from being "trivial", they are substantive and in-depth... which more than meet the reqirements of WP:NF. Please advise. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response rotten tomatoes lists 1 review. The film notability guidelines specifically exclude: Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database..  They specifically require: [significant coverage in] published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism Please provide a links to sources that fit this policy.  I may not agree with the guidelines but they're there for a reason, and this doesn't even seem borderline to me. Phil153 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it is apparent that I must list them here at the AfD to show extensive coverage that more than qualifies under WP:GNG and thus WP:NF: Here are a few of the non-trivial, in-depth reviews that show, per WP:NF, "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the project (IE: not "capsule" reviews"): Sara Schieron of Box Office, Anthony Thurber of Film Arcade, Justin Felix of DVD Talk, Kryten Syxx of Dread Central, Elliot V. Kotek of Moving Pictures Magazine, Diana Thoren of American Vulture, Best Horror Movies, and DVD Verdict. This establishes a significant coverage independent of the subjects by experts in their field who are qualified to give opinion in the genre being reviewed. If there were but one or two, I'd be saying "toss the article"... but that is not the case. I have so tagged the article for WP:RESCUE. Since WP:NF's general principal calls for "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I have shown exactly this... with overkill. And yes, to show that I am very aware of the difference, I also offer a slew of "capsule" reviews for comparison... reviews that are more-than-trivial mentions on a list, but less than substantive in-depth reviews: Rotten Tomatoes, DVD Empire, Ciao, Film Annex, Charlotte Observer, Video Service Corp, Horror-Movies.ca, HK Flix, New York Times, Turner Clasic Movies, Movieweb, Film.com, MSN Movies, New York Dailey News, Movieclock, Horror Mall, Horror Asylum. There ARE MORE of both. And Phil153 is quite correct, this film's notability is not even borderline.... It has more than been established PER THE GUIDELINES. Thanks  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't see the article before MQS got to it, but it's definitely well-fleshed out and well-sourced now. From a quick glance through the given sources, in my opinion most if not all of them qualify as reliable sources, so the article in my opinion meets notability criteria now. Raven1977 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the notability having been established since the nomination. — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability has been established. Terraxos (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Realiable sources to meet notability criteria. --Jmundo (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (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.