Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Possessed (2009 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. postdlf (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Possessed (2009 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

By all appearances a non-notable film with no secondary source, independent, significant coverage. Jay Σεβαστός discuss  11:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If it isn't WP:N, then it does not need an article, yet. Phearson (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * keep This movie is an amazing one about a true story of paranormal incident.it is television documentary movie which is produced by spooky television.this company mostly focuses on horror and super natural subjects like the hunted boy or the grave children.this is a very unique movie about a documented paranormal incident.watseka wonder--91.99.9.55 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These comments from the people who have watched this movie show that it was amazing and interesting for them. http://thepossessedmovie.blogspot.com/ --Navid1366 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, blogs are typically not recognized as reliable sources. Strikerforce (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm very sorry, but unfortunately if a subject has not been covered significantly by reliable, secondary, independent sources, then it is not worthy of its own article. If you can find such sources then please, add them in, and no doubt this AFD will swing round for keep. For more information see WP:N. Jay  Σεβαστός discuss  17:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but it was my fault that i could not imply what i wanted to say.I wanted say that this documentary television movie is not as notable as other movie for example Saw series or The others Or constantine., but if you look at the cooments of the people who have watched this movie you could easily understand that this is interesting and notable movie in super natural movies category.
 * also i have mentioned different sources as reliable sources for this movie like www.imdb.com and i think just this web address is the most reliable source for any movie or TV serial91.99.34.217 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. While inclusion in the IMDB database is not seen as suitable when addressing the issue of notability, it is suitable as a point from which to begin one's research... research that can lead to articles in newspapers that might address the film directly and in detail... such as the one from the Iroquois County Times-Republic Before the day is out I will look into other articles and DVD reviews.  Off to RL work for the nonce.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Update So far, the two-sentence stub that was nominated (without any tagging toward concerns) less than three hours after its creation, has now benefitted from regular editing, becoming a sourced start class article that now serves the project. More can be done, certainly, but in considering that the project accepts that it is itself a work-in-progress, and with respects to the nominator, a hurried nomination might not have been the best way to deal with a new article from a new editor.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete (or Redirect, pending the outcome of the AfD currently underway for Watseka Wonder) - With due respect and appreciation toward the efforts made to improve the article since it was originally created (for the record, I think the nomination may have been a little premature... tagging for improvement would have been my choice of action), this movie appears to fail the policy on the notability of films. A Google search reveals few results outside of the IMDB database (generally not accepted as a proof of notability) and links to download / watch the film online. If the outcome of the current AfD for Watseka Wonder is "Keep", then I would suggest redirecting this article there. Strikerforce (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @ User:Strikerforce, I appreciate your acknowledging that the film article is being improved, but A) the IMDB database is not used to source the article, and B) the "general" search you offered only came up with a paultry 2,750,000 g-hits. However, as WP:GOOGLEHITS encourages we not simply give a count or imply that a large result means the result is either uselesss or too big to search properly... let's be more specific.  In my own use of different search parameters, I  quickly came up with several reliable sources that addressed the film directly and in detail, and used them to expand and source the article so as to have it meet the criteria of WP:Notability (film).  So far, and to meet WP:NF's call for significant coverage allowing an independent article, we have:  A November 30, 1999 interview with the filmmakers in Dread Central where they speak about the film and how it was conceived and made.  An October 1, 2009 in-depth article in Iroquois County Times-Republic that speaks about the film and how it was made and addresses it debuting on SyFy in October 2009.  An August 11, 2009 in-depth review in Dread Central that directly speaks directly toward the film, its production, its creation, and its shortcomings. WP:NF is met, and more can be done... and it's always better to avoid a wide "general" search when we can use our google-foo to narrow the field.  And just as I see no call to merge the notable films Gone With the Wind (film) or The Blue and the Gray (miniseries) to the article "about" The Civil War (though a mention there of media about the war is proper), we also have no need to either delete or merge this article about a notable film to an article someplace else simply because we could.  Independent notability is independent notability, and the persons sourced as creating and being part of this 2009 film, had nothing to do with the event from 1870s.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that you understood the crux of my statement, based on your response. My challenge is that it fails WP:MOVIE, specifically the seven "general principles" of the policy. It may meet #2 of those seven principles, based on the search results that I found, but that's a stretch, in my opinion. You asked me to come here and weigh in and I have done so. I'm sorry, but I still contend that this film is not worthy of its own article. I suggested the redirect as a compromise. Strikerforce (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... then with respects, I believe that the misunderstanding may be yours. As you may be aware, it's not a policy you quote, but rather a guideline.  And in following WP:GNG, that guideline section begins "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  As this film has significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the film, that presumption is met.  This instruction is then follwed by the statement "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist".. a statement which means that IF one or more of the listed attributes can be confirmed, then editors might reasonably expect to find reliable sources... so as to encourage a diligent search for available sources. That section does not mean that if the listed attributes are not met then one can then ignore reliable sources that are found and offered.  And yes, after seeing the courtesy you extended to the article's author, I did ask for your opinion of the article's improvements and advice for further improvements.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless I've missed something (which is certainly possible), I don't believe that that topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Very simply, that is my opinion, and it will be evaluated just as any other in the discussion upon closure. I have no dog in the fight, as the saying goes. In regard to your comments about WP:MOVIE, I am well aware that it is a guideline; at no point did I suggest that it was a policy. However, remember that the stance on "guidelines" are that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". To that extent, I just don't feel that this is a situation that is covered by one of those "occasional exceptions". Strikerforce (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Significant" is not a measure of the number of sources, but rather how sources deal with the topic... this meaning that we do not need dozens of sources dealing with a topic... only that the ones that do, do so "directly and in detail". And neither does significant mean the subject must be the sole topic of the source (which though in several of the sources it actually is), just that (again) the the topic be addressed directly and in detail.  And as the film meets the instruction of the WP:NF through WP:GNG, ther is no "exception" to be made. Notability, even if not earth-shattering, is still notability.  And as for your "policy" reference (and I'm sure you did not write so in any intent to mislead), but when you were referring to the guideline you wrote "...the seven 'general principles' of the policy."  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, in regard to the use of the word "policy". I misspoke and I apologize for that. In regard to the rest of your comment, I offer the same statement to you that I did to the article's author on my talk page in that I still do not feel that this film is notable and until someone can convince me otherwise, my delete !vote comment stands, as is. I appreciate your effort, but I'm just not convinced. However, I am just one person that may or may not be making a good argument, so I look forward to seeing what others might have to offer to the discussion. Strikerforce (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The main reason of the creation of this page was the the relation between this article and Watseka wonder. because a person which is interested in spiritual possession could access at least to visionary example of real incident.you know that most of the spiritual movies and stories are fake and in fact are worthless and also this article could help other people to get more knowledge about paranormal subjects specially for the people who can not spend their time for reading the Dr stevensons booklet.--Navid1366 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep News coverage.   And Dread Central covers it in part of the interview with the creators here  and then reviews the DVD .   D r e a m Focus  09:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per RS coverage, including that cited by Dream.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2011 (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.