Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic (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. semi speedy or whatever per improvements. Pretty clear this isn't going to be deleted per the improbements made. Am assuming nom made in good faith, thanks to al working on the article StarM 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Skeptic (film)

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

Delete unsourced one-liner, no indication that this film meets WP:FILM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a new national-release film with notable actors and plenty of published reviews. The article is crappy but it should be improved not deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per above, but how hard is it to write more than just one short sentence? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nationally released, big stars. The article needs a lot of work, but that is not a reason to "86" it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)
 * Which is exactly why I wrote an essay about one-sentence "articles". Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - if some of the "keep" proponents step up to the plate and improve the article then I will recommend for keeping instead. However, if no one gets around to that by the end of the AFD, for a "national-release film with notable actors and plenty of published reviews", I think that lack of enthusiasm would speak for itself. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So you'd let an article on a notable subject be deleted just because nobody can be arsed to fix it up? Yeah, that makes sense. If that were the case, I can name over 9000 articles that would have to be deleted for that same reason. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a category, a notable actor with a reference, a reference heading, and wikified a couple of words before saying "keep". That makes it have an appropriate assertion of importance and it has at least one reference.  I'm not at all interested in the subject or the film or any of the actors but I did do that because I thought it was the right thing to do.  So I don't think your comment is appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I see someone else added the director. So your comment is even less appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For films and other works of art, whether or not they are "notable" is very closely linked to how popular or well received they are. Films that are popular tend to receive a lot of attention on Wikipedia; films that do not receive attention on Wikipedia tend to be non-notable ones.  I think that if, after a week of an article being nominated for AFD, no one has gotten enthusiastic enough to update the article with details about the film, it is a strong indicator of how really significant the film is. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You should take a look at it now. Somebody loves it. Drawn Some (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really...never seen it, never will, can't stand those kinds of movies. Just had time and and saw a request for help :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So I see. But actually I am even less convinced of its notability now than I was before.  It has been released to a grand total of one theater.  One!  If it had been released in ten cities it would still not be considered to be in wide release!  I'm sorry, but a just-released film in a single theater with a slew of B-list stars does not scream "obvious notability" to me. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, obviously notable and meets WP:NF. Well discussed in numerous news sources that were easily found in a quick Google news search. Being a stub is not, by itself, a valid reason for deleting, but to address the issue, the article has now been greatly expanded. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The film does not even begin to meet WP:NF. It is not in wide release and has not apparently been reviewed by any nationally known critics. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Guideline does not demand the film MUST be in wide release, nor demand that it MUST be reviewed by a "nationally know critic". Those are simply attributes to consider... the presence of which allows a reasonable presumption that reliable sources exist. The "attributes" are NOT themselves mandated criteria... simply an encouragement for a proper and diligent search. Further, guideline DOES instruct that reliable sources be considered in context to what is being sourced... so reviews by critic known and respected for their expertise in horror genre, qualify as acceptable critical review. Of course, that point is now moot, as the sources added since nomination are irrefutable. .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was just released and has already received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including national reviews (even if they aren't nationally known critics), clearly meeting WP:N even if it does not meet the letter of WP:NF. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - How about Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Voice for reviews? ttonyb1 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Added the Variety one. The other two were added earlier today. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep with concerns that the nom does not seem to have practiced diligent WP:BEFORE or considered WP:POTENTIAL. And if not Speedy, than call for WP:SNOWBALL clause in and through the work by User:AnmaFinotera and others after the article was nominated for deletion. It now shines. Superb save.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment- Forgive the superfluous comment, but I also want to acknowledge all the users that "polished" the article. Nicely done... ttonyb1 (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gracias :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets notability requirements, as the nom could easily have determined with a modicum of effort. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - if editors are voting to keep this article out of a desire to reserve deletion for only the most extreme cases of non-notability, that is an entirely defensible point of view and I respect it. If WP:NF is only a loose guideline to be followed and it is not important whether a film satisfies those criteria, then fine, let's leave it out.  But please, please let us not continue to argue that the film satisfies the WP:NF criteria when it so plainly does not.  If the guideline is to mean anything at all, let us at least be candid about whether it really applies here.  Thanks. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the guidelines at WP:NF cannot be applied to new releases. In the case of this film, it is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. As for the rest of the guidelines you're citing, how can any new film be considered notable as evidenced by the publication of at least two non-trivial articles at least five years after the film's initial release; by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals in a poll conducted at least five years after the film's release; the film was given a commercial re-release or screened in a festival at least five years after initial release; the film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking when it just opened; the film was selected for preservation in a national archive when it just opened; or the film is taught as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program when it just opened. It's impossible for a new film to follow these "guidelines" to be considered notable! 209.247.22.166 (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct -- those guidelines can't apply to new films. The only one that even could  "widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."  It fails even on that front.  If we do not think WP:NF is relevant here, let's say it's not relevant and move on.  If we are going to keep the article for reasons other than notability, that's fine.  I'm just asking that we not continue to pretend that it somehow satisfies WP:NF guidelines. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the article quotes critics from The New York Times, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Village Voice, apparently it has been reviewed "by two or more nationally known critics," so how exactly did it fail? As for wide distribution, independent films frequently open in only a handful of markets and can't be considered non-notable just because they do. Since you want it spelled out, I do not think WP:NF is relevant here because most of the current guidelines cannot be applied to new releases and this film does meet the only one that is relevant. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep since topic meets Wikipedia's notability standards; great job on the part of some editors in improving the article. — Erik (talk • contrib) 14:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because the expanded article meets all guidelines and requirements. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per expansion by Collectonian. Granite thump (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per expansion. Clearly meets notability guidelines, and arguments to the contrary are less than convincing. PC78 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to rewrite. Kudos to Collectonian and others!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references are enough to demonstrate notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:52, 11 May 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.