Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Serpent (2020 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 Draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. If more reliable sources are found or the content is improved and passes AFC review, a move to main space can be considered. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The Serpent (2021 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Poorly written article about a film, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of their significance (notable awards, WP:GNG-worthy critical analysis in reliable source media, etc.) -- but existence is about the only notability claim being made here, and the referencing is parked entirely on blogs, directory entries (Letterboxd, IMDb), YouTube videos and user-generated "anybody can submit any self-created 'news' they want to" platforms, with not a whit of GNG-worthy coverage in legitimate media shown at all. In addition it warrants note that this was created in userspace, then moved by its creator into mainspace, then draftified by an established editor for the same reasons as I'm listing it now, but then got moved back into mainspace by the creator without any substantive improvement — but that's not the appropriate process, and I don't see much point in redraftifying it again if the creator is going to just keep remainspacing it himself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment While I was digging up more notability-indicating sources for this article (a review by RogerEbert.com), I found something important. This movie isn't The Serpent (2020). It's The Serpent (2021).  It's got the wrong year.  That might be why attempts at finding sourcing for articles about this movie have come up dry. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Review at RogerEbert; the articles at GirlsWithGuns, Shockya, PopGeeks seem acceptable as signed by their authors. There is also this (Roger Moore's Movienation) and this, or this at least.- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  19:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps merge/redirect to Gia Skova. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel    (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional: other reviews here and here for example. The page needs improvements but the film seems clearly notable.- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am agree the film its notable.
 * Its possible erase the notation of delete?
 * Only need add more information. GEORGEB1989 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Those aren't WP:GNG-worthy reliable or notability-building sources. Films aren't notable just because it's possible to find information about them in a Google search — they have to have coverage in a certain specific tier of high-calibre media sources, like daily newspapers and/or books, which neither Bluray.com nor AIPT are. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * hello@Bearcat
 * The film its notable and are more information and another source
 * it possible eliminate the template
 * Best regards
 * George Barahona GEORGEB1989 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is more support for Draftification or Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the path it took to get here and the fact that the article creator is here, I'll suggest draftify to incubate, but otherwise keep per sourcing by Mushy Yank &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify - It's not hanging on by much, but it does seem to have enough coverage at least regarding it's "cult" / "so bad it's good" appeal to qualify. It definitely needs improvement though, and I would be happy to assist should the page still need repairs in a few days. I do feel that the article should stand on it's own as it is a full length film very much with it's own "presence" outside of it's creator (compared to say, a short film created by a major celebrity, where the main 'hook' of said film would be it's creator's name attached to it). A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have not decided on a vote yet, and agree that Roger ebert.com is RS, but I respectfully disagree that the above sources are acceptable as signed by their authors:
 * -Roger Moore is the only other source close to a RS. It is Wordpress blog with no editorial policies, but the author is a former film critic to several publications per about us. So this might meet an expert SPS and acceptable for non-highly contentious claims, and I would put it as situational to reliable.
 * -Blue ray.com has no about us page demonstrating editorial control and USEBYOTHERS does not appear to be widespread. Noteworthily, the author is Tomatometer-approved but not a "top critic". Still, Rotten Tomatoes's RSP entry makes it clear that Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.
 * -AIPT has no editorial policies, detailed about us, or staff expertise listed, and would be generally unreliable. There is a single USEBYOTHERS- it's on Rotten Tomatoes, but this does not confer reliability, so I would put it unreliable to situational.
 * -Girls with Guns and Popgeek are Wordpress blogs (see bottom of pages) with again no editorial policies, about us, staff expertise, and very limited USEBYOTHERS. Both are obviously non-RS. Shockya is another Wordpress blog, there is a staff page with no indication of expertise, I searched the editors and were unable to find anything, so this is IMO unreliable.
 * -We are the Movie Geeks's about us page seems very fanlike, but there is a couple of contributors that are film journalists. But the piece's author (Tom Brookman) lacks subject-matter-expertise, and there is no clear editorial process that would reassure that his contribution is properly reviewed. Overall, I think this is between situational and unreliable.
 * My BEFORE did not unravel further sources, so I am currently leaning (re)draftify or merge. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  07:31, 22 August 2023 (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.