Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow

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

No WP:RS at all, and no evidence of WP:NOTE. Verbal chat  09:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Superman STRONG Delete: obscure independent film lacking even the assertion of meeting WP:NOTFILM. Only sources cited in the article are the website of the film's own production company. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable third-party sources to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep. Let's not exaggerate here. The film is just as notable as countless other independent films with IMDB coverage. --dab (𒁳) 14:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure IMDB counts as an RS, and I really don't think that an IMDB entry for a film establishes the notability of the film. However, I agree this film is at least as notable as other IMDB films. The question is, does it meet our criteria? Verbal chat  16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It has been covered on various cult film websites, but I suspect most of these are not considered reliable sources. However, I think the coverage indicates notability of some degree. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not RS = not evidence of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "RS" is reative to the subject matter. Personally, I am willing to accept IMDB as a quotable source. I am also uncomfortable because this AfD clearly grows out of Wikipedia's "immune reaction" against the attempts by  User:Logos5557 to tout material related to L/L Research. It is good to see that this reaction does kick in when needed, but this article has nothing to do with Logos5557, and I doubt it would have occurred to anyone to AfD it if it hadn't been for Logos5557's attempts to overdue coverage of the Rueckert/Elkins publications. --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that nobody is likely to have noticed this article sans Logos5557. Having been noticed it has been scrutinised and found to be wanting. On 'relative RS', WP will at times stoop to marginal sources to fill in the gaps, but generally does not grant notability based upon such sources. This is particularly true of indiscriminate sources such as IMDB that aim to cover all potential entries in their field, notable or not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you. This is still a case where I would tend to vote "keep", but I appreciate it is possible to vote "delete". (At last! A genuine AfD! Not like 99% of AfDs that are in fact merge discussions).
 * In fact, I would recommend merging the article on the film into L/L Research as a last resort, but if that is also going to go, this is not an option I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Eluchil404 (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep With respects... let's forget about the unloved IMDB.  There is a bit more to be found away from that site under the film's tongue-in-cheek alternate title of Invasion of the Girl Snatchers. New York Times, Rotten Tomatoes, British Film Institute, All Movie Guide, and others. And it appears that there may be enough for further expansion and sourcing in a few books. Yes, the current article will need some work, yes... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blunt rebuttal: the NYT blurb is just a repeat of the AMG one, which explicitly titles itself as a "Plot Synopsis" not a review. The BFI entry is merely a credits list. The RT entry show zero reviews. Does any of this come within light years of "significant coverage" -- not even close. Likewise, does a mere Google book/news/etc search show any evidence whatsoever of "significant coverage"? Of course it doesn't. Lacking citation of specific publications with coverage, it is only evidence of mere trivial mention or citation in these works. Is there any substance behind this 'keep' vote? No a shred. I see little 'respect' in such tendentiousness, nor in it being unnecessarily spammed to my talkpage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I asked quite politely if you'd like to help improve the article on the 36-year-old film.  A simple "no thanks" would have easily sufficed. That the film had a commercial re-release more than five years after its initial release is worth considering per guideline, and having found much in only a 20-second search allows me the reasonable expectation that there is more. I will look toward bringing the article into line with policy and guideline. Please accept my sincerest apologies for my having asked you for help, and trust that I shall never bother you or your talk page with any request to improve any article ever again.   MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, an invitation that starts with gross misrepresentation of the (in fact negligible) level of coverage is about as "polite" as a mafia kiss before a bullet to the brains. Are you surprised that I would be offended? If so, then you're an even greater fool than you took me for. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, wow. The request you removed from your talk page showed the results of my quick search, shared my belief that more may be avaiable to improve the article, and offered a simple invitation for assistance. Again, I aplogize for extending an invitation to improve the article, and I am sorry that you were so offended by that invitation that you immediately assumed bad faith in my request.  But please, continued incivility in respone is inappropropriate and not helpful to this discussion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  If you really didn't bother to check the contents of the pages you also linked to here in the AfD, then you were acting in bad faith through reckless careless haste. Did you "misrepresent" the sources or your knowledge of them? Why should I care? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now apologized to you several times for asking assistance on your talk page. I have politely explained why I did so.  I maintained decorum throughout.  Your continued declaration of bad faith in my attempts to improve an article is beginning to be a bit much.  Please cease.   MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per dab. The article is marginal, yes, but the few sources that are available tip the scales, in my mind, towards notability.  Cerebellum (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the refspaming has begun. As of this edit, three of the seven citation in the article are for the alternate name. An issue "challenged or likely to be challenged"? I think not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:NF,  "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."  Yes, under an alternate title still counts. This compliance with that portion of NF is being WP:Verified.  Have WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL been consigned to historical in the last few days? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt that "re-release" on home video counts. Can you find a WP:RS that confirms commercial theatrical re-release? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete considering there appears to be a complete lack of any kind of critical commentary of the subject I think it lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. The notability guideline for films specifically mentions that films are subject to the general notability guideline "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Accepted sources for establishing notability are listed as "published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews". Sources specifically excluded are "Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film" and "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". All the coverage presented (and I can't find any more) would appear to fall into the later category. Entries in directories or databases should not confer notability, the Yellow Pages is a notable directory but not every business in it is notable. As a side note whilst there may be some overlap the criteria for inclusion on IMDb are different from those on Wikipedia (see ), for example "is listed in the catalog of an established video retailer (e.g., Amazon.com)" and "has been downloaded in 'large' numbers from some website(s)" probably wouldn't cut it here without independent coverage. Guest9999 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree... WP:V does not always equate to WP:N... but I am continuing my own efforts to improve the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the problem is not verifiability or any other core content policy but notability if you can find the appropriate sourcing I will gladly revise my opinion - in any case it would be rendered somewhat meaningless if the significant coverage which I state is lacking is found and presented. Guest9999 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When significant coverage is lacking (as not everything in these pages immediately meets the GNG), editors are encouraged to check the other inclusion criteria at NF to see if N can be met. Since RS used as V is not mandated to be significant for simply V, I believe I may have already verified meeting the NF General Principle of "commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release"... but one never hangs one's hopes on a single prong of NF.  I will continue my work on the article, as there is more yet to be done.  Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability (films) says "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.". The criteria you mention do not seem to in themselves confer notability per the guideline but "generally indicate... that the required sources are likely to exist", after establishing that a topic met a "prong" the sources themselves would still have to be found. Good luck finding the sources and improving the article. Guest9999 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your courtesy and good wishes are appreciated. In my noting WP:NF's other evidence of notability, I read "Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. The quoted section grants that some notable films might not "pass the test" of the preceding sections (IE: they might fail meeting the GNG), indicating that failure to meet GNG is not the ipso-facto death-knell of a film article.  Might you concur that the section seems to indicate that verification in reliable souces of the film having a re-release 12 years later is worth considering?  It would stand to reason that if verifiable reliable sources were in-depth, there would then be no failure to "pass the test" and the section would have no reason to exist.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My initial thoguht - the ones my arguement was based on - was to disagree with your interpretation. As a general principle the guideline states "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline." to my mind it would be odd to interpet anything comeing after that as being effectively "forget that, no it doesn't". On that basis I considered the "Some films that don't pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits." to meen that films that don't have any of the attributes that generally indicate notability (as listed above) may still be notable - as in meet the general notability guideline - here might be why. Re-reading the guideline I am no longer confident in that interpretation, I think the guideline is malformed and contadictary, there are plenty of other notability guidelines which incorportate the general notability guideline, give additional alternative criteria and explain how best to deal with a topic when either or neither is met. "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." is in the section that refers to the general notability guideline and is only given as an attribute that makes it likely that sources exist - they still have to be found. Guest9999 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the film meets WP:NFILMS as it was "was given a commercial re-release ... at least five years after initial release." It also meets the GNG as evidenced by the sourcing added to the article during the course of this AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: what (WP:V to a WP:RS) evidence do you have that it was "was given a commercial re-release ... at least five years after initial release"? The closest the article itself comes to asserting this is to claim an unsourced claim of a home video release (which would appear to neither meet WP:NFILMS nor to add to notability): "…until 1985, when VCI Home Video, under the 'United Home Video' imprint, released it re-titled Invasion of the Girl Snatchers as part of their 'Le Bad Cinema' line…" HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it hinges on whether on two things: whether a video release counts and whether one considers WilliamGirdler.com a RS or not. On the first point, I don't see why it wouldn't - if the notability guideline intends to limit it to theatrical release then it should say so. On the later point WG would appear tpo pass the RS requirements. It could be argued that it isn't an independent source, but that shouldn't matter a basic fact like the date it was re-released.
 * For good measure, here is another usable review of the film and here is one of marginal quality. Thus, further establishing the GNG is met. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notable since its an Oscar winner's early work, as well as somewhat of a cult classic. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:24, 31 August 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.