Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Who Fell to Earth (1987 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 merge to The Man Who Fell to Earth (novel). Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Man Who Fell to Earth (1987 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find any references for this version of the film (not the 1970 version). May fail WP:NFILM. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here's three hits from Google Books:, , . Apparently it was an unsuccessful pilot for a TV series. PC78 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , the last source is for the 1976 film NOT the 1987 one. The reboot, the 1987 film, is up for deletion request.  The 1976 one isn't. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly you didn't actually look at those links, they are all for the 1987 version (the third one discusses both versions)... PC78 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: The first two links aren't indepth coverage of the film. Certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG.  The second one might be considered a good source but usually one isn't enough.  Perhaps merging the two films might be better?--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A few more mentions of the 1987 version:, . Was merely providing some sources since you said you couldn't find any. :) FWIW I don't think it's unreasonable for this version to be covered somewhere, be it in the article for the novel or the Bowie film, even if there's not enough for a standalone article. PC78 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK. I was getting hits for the 1970 version but it might be because the older version is more famous. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. With a cast like that? Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , but there's not a lot of source for /this/ version of the film. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It existed. It's verifiable. It had a notable cast. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , but notability is not inherited. The film itself doesn't have enough references to stand on its own right.  What you are arguing is WP:ITEXISTS --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I'm arguing it exists and is clearly notable due to its well-known cast, as are almost all productions with notable casts. I believe that is common sense. Telling me that I'm wrong because you believe you're right is not going to change my opinion, so is ultimately fairly pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , well you are arguing that the cast is notable so the film is notable. Sounds like WP:INHERITED to me.
 * Does not meet one of the listed criteria of WP:NFILM
 * The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
 * The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
 * Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
 * The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2]
 * The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
 * The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
 * The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]
 * The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]
 * The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't read my second sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , "I believe that is common sense." That one? --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Third sentence then. Don't be pedantic. Mind you, given you're quoting non-existent "rules" at me... -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:GNG
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
 * Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
 * "Reliable" means that 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.
 * "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]
 * If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.
 * "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]
 * If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

--<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been here a very long time. There is absolutely no need to quote guidelines at me. Indeed, it could be seen as somewhat patronising. My opinion stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Hardly any coverage, hence fails notability requirements for films. I'm somewhat baffled by Necrothesp's insistence that existence + cast member notability should suffice; they don't. If (to take a random example) a Tamil film with these characteristics popped up as a stub this minute, it would immediately evaporate at AfD. Including a note about this remake in The Man Who Fell to Earth should do fine. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage in books such as this is ample to pass WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , how?!? It only lists the summary and does not discuss the film. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to The Man Who Fell to Earth The Man Who Fell to Earth (novel)- The found sources are not enough to establish notability as a stand alone article - two of them are pretty much nothing but a cast list and brief synopsis, and provide no in-depth discussion, reviews, or analysis. The third source is slightly more substantial, but is still largely about the original, with only two paragraphs on the remake. I do agree with Elmidae, however, the the scant information on this one could and should be included on the The Man Who Fell to Earth article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I concur with PC78 below - the original novel is the more appropriate Merge/Redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect per my above comment, but unless there is a tangible link to the 1976 film I think this should be at The Man Who Fell to Earth (novel) which should include coverage of both adaptations. PC78 (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.