Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Bride


 * 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. Consensus is to delete. Article can be recreated as a draft. Neil N  talk to me 14:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Russian Bride

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable movie, characterized by its producers as "ultra-low budget", that has not even begun principal photography. It does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, in particular WP:NFF, which states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Principal photography not yet begun, and is not scheduled until next month. It's WP:CRYSTAL to presume that once filmed and released, it will get significant coverage from unaffiliated independent sources. It's not clear that a theatrical release is planned (although the overcrowding page refers to a planned L.A. premiere); a DVD is planned, and it may well be a direct-to-DVD movie.

I'm going to be a little verbose here, given the prior PROD and the subsequent discussions with the principal editor.

I PRODded it about a week ago, and it was dePRODded by its principal editor,. I will note that in my PROD, I had construed its crowdfunding effort to be to raise funds to make the film. Lyrda has pointed out that the crowdfunding effort was not to raise money to make the film, but to pay for acting coaching for the child actress Kristina Pimenova.

That being said, there still is no indication of notability. Nearly all the references in the article are to material generated by the production itself: Reigning Entertainment, the production company; its Indiegogo crowdfunding page; a quotation of the film's press release at Horror Movies CA; the film's casting call notice at backstage.com; the film's "official newsletter"; and the film's facebook page.

There are three sources that are, on their face, independent of the subject, but provide no basis for notability: A paywalled Posh Kids Magazine article is cited for the proposition that the child-model who stars in the film is making a career move into acting; a decaymag.com article that reports on the crowdfunding effort, but appears to be just a blog; and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs for the inconsequential fact that the production company does, in fact, exist and is incorporated in the state.

None of this adds up to notability.

The IMDB page for the movie has very little information on it; IMDb does not carry full entries for films in pre-production, pretty much for the same reasons Wikipedia normally does not.

The principal editor is a WP:SPA account, whose edits have concentrated on this article, a now-deleted article on its actress Kristina Pimenova, and that article's AfD. When I inquired as to a conflict of interest, she said no, and I take her at her word.

There's more discussion on the article's talk page, which may be informative.

I want to note that this AfD is not reflective on the principal editor or her work; it is merely an effort to limit Wikpedia's coverage to notable material. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not write the deleted article Kristina Pimenova, which was in poor shape. Neither am I a single-purpose account. I have started two articles, edited and commented on ten others, and participated in project and help discussions. Not that there is anything wrong with editors focusing on a single topic, as proposer seems to suggest. Furthermore, to randomly suggest that just because a new user began at topic X, they must have a conflict of interest with topic X, is uncivil and no testimony of good faith. Can we please discuss the article without attempts to put the editor in a bad light? Lyrda (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IMDb carries whatever people enter into it and gets accepted. It does not distinguish in that regard between films by stage of development. There is more information in IMDb-pro, but IMDb is not put forward as the source of this article. Instead, there are nine other sources. Lyrda (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a low-budget film, not an 'ultra-low-budget film' whatever that may be. Proposer wants to suggest that this is an amateur project. It is not, this is a professional movie with notable, prize-winning producers and cast. Lyrda (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposer failed to notify Wikiproject Film even though participants are aware of this article. It is therefore unlikely that this proposal will attract sufficient attention from users familiar with notability and guidance relating to this topic. Lyrda (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to notify relevant Wikiprojects when an Article for Deletion discussion is started. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is nonetheless the appropriate and civil course of action. Articles_for_deletion Lyrda (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Contrary to what proposer repeatedly suggests, I did not start this article gazing into the future. In my opinion the topic is already notable in this stage of development, based on the notability of the people involved and evidenced by sources included and not included (social media buzz) in the article. Lyrda (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A film that may or may not be in production, supported by references that do not collectively help the subject to meet the General Notability Guideline. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON - if the film is ever released, and if it gets a sufficient quantity of coverage in reliable, independent sources (not IMDB, Backstage or other self-published sources) then I look forward to reading about it here. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Backstage, Decay Magazine, Horror Movies CA and Posh Kids Magazine are all reliable, independent sources. At Backstage, a team of casting experts review each casting notice posted to ensure the quality and legitimacy of the project. Lyrda (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a Casting Notice, which cannot be considered Independent by any stretch of the imagination. Would the casting notice be there if the people involved with the project hadn't written it? No it wouldn't. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Backstage reviews all notices and deletes entries of insufficient quality. That's what makes it independent and why I included it as a source, rather than e.g. exploretalent.com. Please note that there are three more independent sources as well. Lyrda (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As you're clearly an editor with an undeclared Conflict of Interest, the time I'm going to spend responding to you is going to be very limited. You'll get a lot more time & good faith from me if you read WP:COI and declare your Conflict of Interest openly and honestly. Anyway, the sources: Source 1 - Company website - not independent. Source 2 - Indiegogo crowdfunding project - not independent. Source 3 - report on crowdfunding campaign written by someone who states they are an "independent movie blogger" - fails WP:RS. Source 4 - this source is not about the film. Source 5 - press release - not independent. Source 6 - casting call - not independent. Source 7 - newsletter written by the company - not independent. Source 8 - about the setting up of a company - not about the film itself. Source 9 - a Facebook post - fails WP:RS. That's really all I have to say about the sourcing - read through WP:RS yourself if you have any queries. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So we're back at attacking the editor. Meanwhile, it's obvious then that you have no idea of Wikipedia's key concepts, nor do you seem familiar with the topic. You appear to be a hit-and-run deletionist, just like proposer, so I'm clearly wasting my time here. Lyrda (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address what I've said. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't say anything coherent. Perhaps you could begin by explaining why you still think Backstage, who have been in business for 50 years, is not independent despite its review board. Lyrda (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd ask that you remain civil during this discussion - ad hominem isn't your friend here. Anyway, as I've already pointed out, the casting call posted by the company in Backstage is not an independent source because it was posted by the company. The fact that it has been checked by Backstage before they agreed to post it is not a factor. I've pointed out WP:RS to you twice now - you should read it before asking anything further about sources because it answers every possible query. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to stop attacking me, then. The available guidance on independence is WP:IS, an essay, not WP:RS, a guideline. Bottom line is that independence pertains to the source, not the content or how it got there. Backstage   reviews all entries, that's all that matters. IMDb does not. Similarly, a collective of film reviewers that decide to build on some press releases, but not others, is also an independent source. Reliability is another matter. Backstage is reliable because it has a reputation of good fact-checking. Lyrda (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fixate on whether or not a Casting Call is a reliable, independent source. The simple fact is, the General Notability Guideline hasn't been met. This isn't personal, so behaving like it is won't help matters. If you can improve the article without using unreliable, non-independent sources then do so. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It would have been more civil for you to say "OK, you've convinced me about Backstage, how about the rest." Perhaps you could tell me why, in your opinion, Posh Kids Magazine is neither reliable nor independent? Also, notability of the topic is unrelated to the current state of the article, and it's not my personal burden either to improve it. Lyrda (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't convinced me. A casting call, written by the company producing a film, is never - under any circumstances - an independent, reliable source. I hope that clears up any apparent confusion. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously the casting call itself is dependent, just like the press release (they're both still reliable though). The source, however, is not the casting call, but Backstage. Backstage is independent. How about Posh Kids Magazine? Lyrda (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've already answered. "Source 4 - this source is not about the film" Exemplo347 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be, as long as it's relevant to the topic. Lyrda (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please can you link to a policy or guideline that supports this? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you? You're the one making a claim that goes against common sense. Hint: it's not in WP:RS. Lyrda (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note Clearly the article creator is taking this a bit too personally. I'd suggest stepping back from this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think not. Look, you are perfectly welcome to simply state: "There is coverage, but in my opinion it's not significant enough." Instead you are continuously attacking the editor, and you come up with a series of questionable statements about sources that you are unable or unwilling to explain. Those are unacceptable tactics in a discussion, and should not be left unaddressed. Lyrda (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - going through the sources I came to the same conclusion as Exemplo347 above. Since they have already discussed each one of the sources I won't repeat what they already said; suffice it to say that neither WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG is met. --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The current sources are of pretty little consequence, and basically universally don't count as independent, secondary or reliable by Wikipedia standards, and I'm not finding really anything online that does. I appreciate Lyrda's enthusiasm, but they probably need a bit more experience, since a lot of their argument rests on fairly run-of-the-mill misunderstanding regarding what these types of terms specifically mean on Wikipedia, versus what they mean in a more general sense. I would encourage them to visit the Teahouse if they have specific questions or need particular guidance, and to take some time editing on subjects other than those that they very likely would not know existed in the first place if they did not have some sort of conflict of interest. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have a conflict of interest with this topic, and everything I've said about sources is supported by existing guidance. Lyrda (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate an explanation as to why you deem none of the nine sources reliable, since WP:RS seems to indicate that they are. This has not yet been discussed. Above we have only talked about independence. Lyrda (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This looks like a cut-and-dry case. Also, the article's principal editor doesn't (yet) have a complete understanding of WP:RS as has been made clear in comments above. Note that this deletion doesn't preclude the article coming back once reliable sources become available.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 16:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it disheartening that people keep claiming that I don't understand WP:RS, yet nobody is willing to provide any insights. Surely, if sources are so cut-and-dryly unreliable, it should be easy enough to explain. Btw, if we end up with a conclusion to delete, please move it back to Draft instead, so I (and others) can keep working on it. Production starts in less than 3 weeks, new sources are bound to appear very soon. Lyrda (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would ordinarily be happy to discuss, but from what I gather above, there seems to be too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT coming from your corner. Also, I am convinced you actually haven't read through WP:RS because barely anything you have stated reflects it. I recommend actually reading it and asking questions at WP:Help desk or elsewhere on points that don't make complete sense.  As for userfying or moving an article to draft, that option is certainly available to you.  But on this "new sources are bound to appear very soon", I'd like to know where you buy your crystal balls. :)  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In my experience, films that are talked about a lot even before production has started, will continue to get attention as development continues. Especially with a high-profile cast and notable producers. No crystal ball is needed for that, but it's allowed in this context (my personal expectation that there will be stuff to add to the article). I read WP:RS thoroughly many times over already before moving the article into main space. It contains no guidance with respect to independence, the only thing discussed so far. I am ready to discuss reliability. Please explain to me why, in your opinion, for instance, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is not a reliable source regarding the existence of a LLC. Lyrda (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your experience as you state it is irrelevant to the determinations made about notability. We will not litigate our policies/guidelines here. As for independence, I am satisfied that other experienced editors have explained this reasonably well to you, and that you refuse to acknowledge what is fairly straightforward. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note Please be aware that non-neutral canvassing appears to be taking place here. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Bringing this discussion to the attention of WikiProject_Film is not canvassing, nor is this a request for a particular outcome. Lyrda (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep came to the article for more information because I was just reading a news article today about the production. Does deletion help?.--Moxy (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's just another reprint of a press release, though. The article has to have secondary sources that talk specifically about the film, to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not here much at these deletion debates ..as an old timer this is a bad side of Wikipedia I try to avoid. Just have to say is it really  best to leave our readers in the dark by deleting this article that clearly is getting views. Noting wrong ..as in non neutral etc.... just facts here. Not sure how giving our readers nothing will help them. Think of our readers always pls!! --Moxy (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no grave damage from not having an article about a movie that hasn't even began shooting yet, especially for which there is no WP:RS. As always, this can be userfied or moved to draft in case RS begins appearing, and if/when the article is reinstated, our dear readers who we very much adore can read the article.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 18:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one of the reasons Wikipedia is not the first stop for movie information...we are behind the rest of the world in this regard .  But you guys here deal with this all the time I guess and know best. As a history editor I find most movies sources low quality...so dont see a sourcing problem here news is news.-- Moxy (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a future movie site -- it is an encyclopedia with long-held standards for inclusion. Once this movie attains notability (if it does), we'll have an article for it.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 18:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is, however, a Category:Upcoming films with a multitude of entries, many of which have less information than this article. So clearly, a film doesn't have to be released in order to be notable. Lyrda (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That obscures the overall problem here, that this article has no WP:RS while other upcoming films do. My point is that we don't have articles for future films just because they exist. Also, your statement about other articles having "less information" is unfortunately entirely irrelevant to this AfD, and is frankly your personal opinion.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 19:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we discuss that please, because IMHO all the current sources are reliable. Lyrda (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and especially, reliable sources. That article fails as a reliable source, the underpinning of notability, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Deletion is an important way to keep Wikipedia from becoming a vehicle for promotion, a soapbox, or a collection of trivia. Tapered (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please look @ What Wikipedia is not Tapered (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note Posted Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Lyrda (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Here from RSN. The reliability of sources when they are self-published is irrelevant for a *notability* discussion. Notability is demonstrated by *independant* reliable *secondary* sources on the subject. Primary sources (press releases, official websites, crowfunding pages etc) may be useable in the article but do not demonstrate notability (as every primary source thinks they are notable). At best there are passing mentions with no real coverage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliability does not pertain to the press release, but to the previewers that used it. The same goes for the casting call (Backstage checks and reviews all entries and is considered very reliable). The article has five completely independent sources. Only one of them is indirect. Lyrda (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reprinting press releases is not significant coverage. At best there is enough sourcing to say 'this exists'. Not everything that exists has a wikipedia article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the significance of the coverage is indeed what this discussion should be about. But also, what about the involvement of notable people (several with their own Wikipedia article)? Does their notablity carry over, as I stated on the article's talk page? Lyrda (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a fair question. Unfortunately the answer is no - notability does not carry over. If this film had had significant importance in the career of any of the notable people involved it could have been mentioned in the article about them (with reliable independent sources, if any such are found), but at this point that does not appear to be the case. --bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, which I happen to disagree with. The film is certainly important in the career of Kristina Pimenova, see Posh Kids Magazine (hence its inclusion as a source). Lyrda (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem you're going to have is that the Administrator who closes this discussion will agree with the long-standing consensus that these "essays", guidelines and policies represent. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The administrator's only job is to establish if consensus has been reached. Please stop disrupting the flow of the discussion. Lyrda (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not correct - they will weigh the consensus of the discussion against the existing policies and guidelines, and will not take into account any personal opinions that do not align with the policies and guidelines that are relevant here - WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:AFD/AI. And WP:NFILM points the user to WP:N for upcoming films. Once again, you seem entirely unfamiliar with the actual content of policies and guidelines. Lyrda (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean WP:NFF? Exemplo347 (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Read the guideline, for a change. Lyrda (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NFF is a guideline, and it says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." Exemplo347 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NFF points to WikiProject Film/Future films which says: "If the film fails to meet basic community-wide standards such as verifiability, notability, and no original research, it may be prodded, AfD'd, or speedy deleted, as appropriate." Lyrda (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've found something that will enable you to agree that this discussion is appropriate. From WikiProject Film/Future films: "All film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines. This may also include related articles which are primarily about the film's content, such as character pages. For these articles, the primary notability guideline is that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot."Exemplo347 (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My guess is that there were articles for parts 2 and 3 of The Hobbbit long before production. Whatever a guideline may say, the policy outranks it. That's why the project page points to it, and why I was discussing notability with other users, before you disrupted the process again. Lyrda (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Commenting in an Article for Deletion discussion is never "disruption" - even if you don't like what the comments say. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lyrda it's clear the majority don't see the sources as making the article notable at this time. Not the end of the world.....just give it a few months till more is out about the film.--Moxy (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage in secondary sources and it does not comply with WP:NF. The only aspect which gave me pause to think is the involvement of Corbin Bernsen but not all his work is regarded as notable and it is unclear at this stage whether it's a notable aspect of his career. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are at least four notable people involved with the topic. For instance, producer Philip J Day has won many awards. Do you have a suggestion on what to do with the information if the article gets deleted? Add it to each of the separate articles? The film itself doesn't have to be notable to be added to existing articles. Lyrda (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As above: no, not unless it is in fact an important/notable part of the person's career, and not unless there are reliable independent sources discussing the film and its importance for the producer/actor. --bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with here. Really though, the answer to every question you have asked could have been found quite easily, by reading the links that people have been providing for you. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As established repeatedly above, the links provided by you never contained what you claimed. We have now arrived at discussing notabilty, after all your nonsense with incorrectly calling sources not independent. Lyrda (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting aside your ad hominem again, the link to WP:NFILM was provided very early on in this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. But you should have mentioned WP:IS, which you conveniently forgot. Lyrda (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but it's still early days. We haven't seen many film experts yet, who e.g. can confirm that Decay Magazine, Dread Central and Horror Movies CA are reliable and carry weight. And it's not a vote, consensus is built on arguments. You made a good argument about the page getting many visits. Lyrda (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just need time - The Russian Bride 2017/Кристина Пименова and Kristina Pimenova //the russian bride//--Moxy (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The trailer and other clips have been viewed over 75.000 times already. Then again, editors opined that 4 million followers is still no indication of notability. Something is horribly wrong here. Lyrda (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I have expanded and updated the article, and will of course continue to do so as I find more information. Lyrda (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note Added a new source that appeared today on deadline.com. There are now 13 sources, 4 more than in the discussion above. Lyrda (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Review of new sources 1 - From press release. 2 - From press release (the text "From Press Release" was the clue). 3 - Instagram hashtag search. 4 - Youtube search result. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They usually are. The point is, they see many press releases and find only some of them notable enough to deserve attention. And social media searches provide information on notability, you can't just dismiss them out of hand. Lyrda (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom; I don't have much to add to what I put in the nomination, but did want to address a couple things raised above.
 * IMDB's coverage of pre-production films is limited; and it distinguishes between pre-production (where "the project is financed, locations are being scouted, people are being hired and production is imminent with a fairly firm start date for filming") and development, i.e. earlier than pre-production. As a movie-specialized website, unlike Wikipedia, IMDB has a more liberal threshold for inclusion. More at.
 * The characterization as "ultra-low-budget" is not mine; it comes from the film's production company itself, from the casting call used as a reference in the article. SAG-AFTRA defines "low-budget" as "under $2.5 million" and "ultra-low-budget" as "under $250,000". TJRC (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the budget at the time of the casting call, before several investors joined. Lyrda (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * From WP:WHYN: We require significant coverage in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page. (my bold) The page is well beyond half a paragraph. It has more information already than many pages about released films (and attracts more views as well). So in terms of WP:N, the coverage is significant. I would like to know what WP:N criterion then, if any, is not yet met. Lyrda (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you've skipped over this (also from WP:N) - "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization." Exemplo347 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you are the only one who claims the sources are not independent, and we have discussed that ad nauseam already. Lyrda (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see at least two other editors who have pointed out concerns about the independence of the sourcing. Have a read through this page again - I'm not "the only one" by any stretch of the imagination - putting your fingers in your ears & pretending you don't hear valid objections from experienced editors is a waste of your energy. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your point of view has been clear from the beginning, thanks. Lyrda (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My point of view is this, and only this: I'm here to improve Wikipedia, as are most editors. If an article does not meet the General Notability Guideline and the specific additional notability criteria that apply to it (WP:NFILM in this case) then it has no place here. This isn't a personal thing - I've participated in a large number of these discussions, it's a routine process that has no reflection on the creators of articles. It's about policy, nothing more. But, I'm guessing you'll take this response personally too. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't pertain to the article, but to the topic. There is more information that I haven't been able to add yet because of this Afd. The topic needs to satisfy either WP:N or WP:NFILM, not both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. My point of view is that it easily satisfies WP:N. Lyrda (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood. WP:GNG is the one that must be satisfied. The others are just a bonus. Every single article that Wikipedia has must meet the threshold in the General Notability Guideline, it's not optional and I can't see how you can think that it is after it's been pointed out to you by so many people. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Citing WP:N:: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and (...) (my bold). Lyrda (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And the first part of WP:NFILM says exactly what the GNG says - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Come on now, be realistic. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also important not to confuse a presumption of notability with a determination of notability. A presumption just provides a starting point; it's not a conclusion. Presumptions can be rebutted. A subject that is presumed notable may not, on examination, be notable. It's not by any means a guarantee. All persons charged with crimes start out with a presumption of innocence, yet a large number of them are found guilty. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Sometimes there are lots of IRS's but without any encyclopedic content. Lyrda (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Not convinced that these sources provide the independent in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG. -KH-1 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not ask for in-depth coverage, only for significant coverage. WP:RS specifies when it's significant, too: an article longer than a single paragraph must be possible. The article is already much longer than that. Lyrda (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the discussion above.   I admire your persistence, and I am sure this is going to be an excellent film--I might even go see it.  But we are not here to promote the film.  I suggest you: (1) copy all of the Wikitext here (and at the article) to your sandbox before it gets deleted, which almost surely is going to happen, no matter how much more your push (2) Look at the films that *have* passed WP:AfC and survived WP:AfD and see what sources were necessary to keep them alive.  At some point this film might get the WP:RS it needs, so if you do that, then you'll know what is required and you can submit it to WP:AfC and see if you can get it approved then.  I suggest you thank everyone for their time considering your article, apologize for any frustration you might have caused, promise to do some of what I suggest, and it will likely be well received.  Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you eventually get what you are looking for and don't get too frustrated... --David Tornheim (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary of views

 * 1) There seems to be agreement that the article is well-formed and neutrally written, and contains verifiable facts.
 * 2) There seems to be agreement that the topic (an upcoming film, yet to be produced and released) fails WP:NFILM.
 * 3) In discussion is therefore whether the topic satisfies WP:N, and since no other specific guideline applies, therefore WP:GNG.
 * 4) To satisfy WP:GNG, i.e. to be considered notable, the topic (not: the article) needs sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to enable the writing of an article, rather than just a few lines.
 * 5) The sources originally include Decay Magazine, Horror Movies CA, Posh Kids Magazine.
 * 6) New sources added during this Afd include Deadline Hollywood, Dread Central.
 * 7) Exemplo347 believes that none of the sources is independent.  Struck this disingenuous summary. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Stevietheman thinks that none of the sources is reliable.
 * 9) Timothyjosephwood judges the sources to be of little consequence.
 * 10) Bonadea and Only in death claim a lack of secondary sources.
 * 11) TJRC&#91;disputed&#93; and Betty Logan are of the opinion that the sources provide insufficient independent, reliable coverage.
 * 12) Moxie sees nothing wrong with the sources and considers the topic notable, also because of the number of page views.
 * 13) Lyrda has the view that there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and finds the topic notable.

Except for Exemplo347's view, there has been very little discussion and much unwillingness to elaborate. The expanded version of the article has not been seen by most participants. Note that a mention in Deadline Hollywood is a big thing, their article has been copied dozens of times within 24 hours. Lyrda (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an accurate summary of at least my position, as stated here and on the talk page. I have not seen any significant coverage of the film in sources unrelated to the film. Almost all the sources are from the producers, either directly or indirectly by quoting material provided by producers. There are a few reliable or presumably reliable sources, but they aren't on the film. For example, the fact that the production company is licensed to do business in the state and reflected as such in the state's roster of companies has nothing to do with the film. The fact that the model who is the actress in the film said in an interview that she wanted to go into acting has nothing to do with the film. All the sources that are actually about the film are from the film. In short, my position is that the film has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * I'll not specifically comment on the accuracy of Lyrda's characterization of the other editors' positions; but in general, I would encourage the closing admin to look to the editors' own comments, and not the putative summary above. TJRC (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Amended. Lyrda (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not an accurate summary. I don't think this summary adds anything useful, except a call to all the other editors to come in and have a dispute within a dispute. I'm not going to continue that further. I'll simply note it here and rely on the closing admin to look to the actual editors' comments rather than a characterization made by an involved and entrenched editor. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see that you're back at attacking the editor. Lyrda (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I do not agree to having my words paraphrased and interpreted, and I also don't agree with the actual interpretation. However, I wholly trust that the reviewing administrator will disregard secondary interpretations and look at what each participant in the discussion has actually posted. --bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. This was hard to follow on PC and is almost indecipherable on mobile. Definitely my bad for not watchlist in this and replying to the follow up questions. I'll try to re-review things, but assuming the trend does swing toward delete, this might be a really good candidate for moving to a draft rather than deleting. Being an unreleased film, when this discussion happens may be just as important as anything else, and it may easily pass in a few months or a year. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal
Because several new sources have appeared during this Afd, and most participants haven't commented on the expanded version of the article, I propose to let the Afd run for another week. I hope that we can then discuss the reliability and significance of the sources, which hasn't happened yet, perhaps on a source-by-source basis. Now that we're here, we might as well be thorough. Otherwise we may need to do it all over again a few weeks from now. Lyrda (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most editors are simply refraining from bludgeoning the process. It's not at all unusual for an article to continue to be edited during the AFD process. The basis for the AFD is not, after all the state of the article, but the notability of the subject of the article. TJRC (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but the notability of the topic has increased during the Afd due to e.g. the Deadline Hollywood source, which didn't exist until yesterday. Lyrda (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose dragging out the process. The "new source" the author mentions is yet another press release. My objections have been made very clear - a failure of the subject to meet the GNG (not purely limited to independence, but also the reliability of the sources and the significance of the coverage) and WP:NFF (no new film that has not yet commenced principal photography can meet WP:NFF). That, my esteemed fellow editors, is an accurate summary of my opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained above, WP:NFF is irrelevant. Obviously WP:NFILM cannot be satisfied since it's for films that have been released, you don't have to repeat that over and over. Looking at WP:GNG, can you please specify which sources you consider unreliable, so we can finally begin to discuss that? Lyrda (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My objections to each source have been pointed out already in this discussion. If you want to argue about them again, save some time and re-read your own responses to me in your head. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your objections were about independence. You didn't get much support for that, so indeed we do not need to discuss that again (you are still confusing source with source material). I was asking about reliability since you just brought that up. Lyrda (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment from 5 days ago points out a number of unreliable sources. Read through the page again, have fun - I'm not repeating myself again just to get the same "La la la!!! I can't hear you!!" response. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And there we go again, attacking the editor. You mentioned two, with little explanation, so I will assume then that it's just about these two, Decay Magazine and Facebook. Lyrda (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Assume anything you want - the closing Administrator will read through everything thoroughly. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Facebook
Unreliable according to Examplo347, but that is not in accordance with WP:SELFSOURCE, which even explicitly mentions Facebook. The source is only used to establish the existence of the trailer, i.e. information about themselves. Lyrda (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Decay Magazine
Unreliable according to Examplo347, who says it's a random blogger. It is not, Decay Magazine is a venue that specializes in crowdfunding campaign news and indie genre film analysis. The author is a staff correspondent. They may not be the New York Times, but they don't have a poor reputation for fact-checking. WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG apply. The source is only used to cite their comment on the film's theme. Lyrda (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note There is some useful input now at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Lyrda (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources cited not reliable. Search tools produce no dedicated articles/websites from a reliable source. Not notable. PLEASE delete before this AfD page eats up all of Wikipedia's bandwidth. Tapered (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate? Why, for instance, do you think that Deadline Hollywood is unreliable? Why does reliability depend on 'dedication' to the topic? This is not a vote. Lyrda (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Lyrda's verbose and endless postings are approaching disruptive editing. Tapered (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

From the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

 * Official websites are often poor sources for the plot of any given work, as they lack in detail and may have a promotional tone. As the company's identification of its own productions, they may be used as primary sources. Primary sources are not banned, but should be used with caution.
 * Decay is an online magazine, established in 2014. It describes itself as a magazine devoted to the horror, thriller and sci-fi genres. Based on the contents, it also includes some fantasy topics. It has sections on Conan the Barbarian, part of the sword and sorcery subgenre. I am not certain if it counts as a reliable source, but I do not see anything particularly objectionable here.
 * Posh Kids is a magazine devoted to fashion, entertainment, and lifestyle. Nothing too unusual here, and it seems to have interviews with a number of actors.
 * Horror Movies CA is a website devoted to horror films, established in 2005. It has numerous news article about the genre, a number of reviews, and articles on related topics. I am not certain who owns the website. I don't see ownership information.
 * Backstage (magazine) might be a better source. Established in 1960, it is an entertainment industry-related magazine. Its intended audience is not the general public, but people already working in film, television, and theatre who are seeking information on casting, job opportunities, and career advice.
 * Official newsletters are primary sources and may be biased or unreliable. On the topic of funding, there have been cases where film companies published inaccurate information on their funding sources, overstated or understated their budgets, and broke a number of industry regulations when in came to their accounting. Several of our articles on film companies focus on cases which went to court, or led to the company's demise.
 * The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is a primary source on employment, professional licensing, construction, and commerce in the state of Michigan. I would consider it reliable, but it is not exactly a specialized resource on film.
 * I may be incorrect here, but I have been working on film articles for a number of years. Most of our film articles do not even mention information on the trailer of any given film. I am not certain why should we include trailer information here. Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC) copied from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard Lyrda (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you agree with the re-posting of your comments from the RSN into this discussion here? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Horror Movies CA
Founder and team are mentioned here. Same type of source as Decay Magazine, but it has been around longer and is a size larger. WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG apply. Lyrda (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2017 (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.