Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witches Hammer


 * 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. Nja 247 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Witches Hammer

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

Film that I do not think meet WP:NF. There was something in the local paper about it, and reviews on speciailist horror film webites. There are plenty of hits for it, but none I could find that could be deemed to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I note the additional sources that have been provided. They are all specialist horror movie sites, many of which seem blog like in character. There is also an award nomination (but not win) from a minor film festival. I stand by what I said in my nomination, that I do not believe this has established notability, specifically none of the guidelines from WP:NF are met. Quantpole (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Malleus Maleficarum as a likely search term. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  delete and Redirect  per Wrathchild. the only source I can find is  which is frankly horrible.  If better sourcing turns up, I'd be willing to change. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice improvement. Keep Some of the sources used are moderate, but the ones I looked at seemed to be RSes complete with editorial oversight even if they are largely "fan-based" sites.  Hobit (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per NOW improved article. Multiple sources have been provided, and though not New York Times or Washington Post, are genre-specific WP:RS that have editorial oversite and are accepted experts in their field. The NYT rarely reviews independent, low-budget horror films unles they make a BIG splash... but then Twitch Film or Fatally Yours rarely reviews big-budget blockbusters.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it meet any of the guidelines of WP:NF though? Quantpole (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, WP:NF defers to WP:GNG which is met per sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Delete none of those sources look very reliable to me, fan-sites don't establish notability for something. Blizzards of bad cites aren't worth one good one. Fails GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are interesting opinions, could you explain which don't seem reliable and why? And is there something about "fansites" I'm missing in WP:N or some other guideline?  Some of these are hobbiest sites (no one makes a living off them) but given proper oversite and editorial control we've always taken such sites AFAIK. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - now seems considerably improved and clearly noteable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Granite thump (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All those websites have editorial oversight and a history of good fact checking, which makes them valid references. If you find one that doesn't seem valid to you, please look around it, and then post your case in the talk page of the article.  D r e a m Focus  01:31, 30 April 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.