Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrage (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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Danger (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Umbrage (film)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Danger (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails notability guidelines for films: limited release with no major critical reviews. Danger (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per my own WP:BEFORE showing the film is receiving significant review and comentary in the sources we expect for smaller budget independent films: Dread Central 1 Dread Central 2 MJSimpson Bloody-Disgusting JoBlo Fangoria 28dayslateranalysis MakingTheFilm et al. In respect for WP:BITE, I am concerned that this brand new article was sent to AFD while being actively edited by its author when it would have been more suitable to have simply tagged it for cleanup, expansion, and sourcing... thus allowing its author to continue his work. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation within an article. As such sources were easily found, the applicable guideline WP:Notability (films) is met. I request the nominator withdraw and allow this to be improved through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did my due diligence, thank you, and was unable to find coverage meeting notability standards. Of the sources you list, only three are actual reviews. Routine coverage (listing trailers, press releases) does not indicate notability. Two of those are to blogs: "Pestilence" is not a nationally known reviewer or a reliable source. MJ Simpson is perhaps a nationally known person, but not as a critic. Not every indie film ever made is suitable for inclusion.Danger (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that listings can't even agree on when this film was released (2009? 2011?) is also suggestive. Danger (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. "Nationally known" is an atribute to encourage searches, not a required mandate. The dates you found were suggestive only that due diligence would have revealed to you that the film debuted at London FrightFest Film Festival on October 31, 2009, had its DVD release in the UK October 2011 and is slated for US and Canada DVD release by Lionsgate in 2012. Also "pestilence" is but one of the many nom-de-plums used by reviewers at the acceptable Dread Central, just as is "Uncle Creepy". Genre expert MJ Simpson reviews ARE acceptable for genre films, and are offered at his MJ Simpson.com. Dread Central, MJ Simpson, Bloody-Disgusting, JoBlo, Fangoria, are not blogs and are accepted sites for which to find coverage or verifability for independent horror films. What IS required for mandated verifiability is reliable sources... but occasionaly overlooked is that whatever is used for WP:V does not itself "have" to be significant coverage. However, enough of those found ARE non-trivial coverage so SIGCOV is met. Another easily found is the quite respectable article at Quiet Earth Wikipedia does NOT require that low-budget independent horror films "must" to be reviwed in The New York Times in order to be seen as meeting WP:NF. Cheers,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was expanding this article and kept getting deletion tag on every step before I could even complete it. Please give time to new articles of at-least 7 days to expand. ASHUIND  18:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that it happened, and speaking for myself, believe the nominator's perceived concerns are easily addressable... and am myself quite wiling to assist. Keep in mind though, that once anything hits article space, its up for immediate and sometimes negative evaluation by others. In the future, you might consider creating articles in a userspace workspace as a draft, and then tune them to perfection before a "move" to article space.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend Schmidt's advice about creating articles in userspace in future. --Lexein (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Update what was nominated while being actively edited, has merited by a little care and regular editing. So far, it has been expanded and sourced to take it from a 404 B (71 words) "readable prose size" stub, to (as of this post) a nicely sourced and encyclopedic 5678 B (926 words) "readable prose size" "C" class that serves the project and its readers. More that can be done? Yes. But all that's ever required for an article on a notable topic to flourish is time and regular editing. Cheers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Update Now at 9618 characters (1599 words) "readable prose size", a 22x expansion since nomination and looking better and better. Personally, I find it satisfying and productive to help an article meet its potential to serve the project and its readers. Now to think about a suitable DYK for main page...  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Now well sourced, and enthusiastically expanded, and tenderly copyedited. I agree with Schmidt's assessment about WP:BEFORE and the sources, above, especially Fangoria. The film's genre, and audience, determine the review pool in which it is known. In its genre, it is well known, and well represented in reviews. I disagree with any attempt to restrict film coverage to only mass market films, based on too-narrow interpretation of guideline. IMHO film blogs can be considered reliable due to accumulated author expertise, especially if the article only uses them for mundane claims. The claims made in the article are mundane, and are presented as opinion, requiring only the sourcing that is provided. Any strongly disputed sources should be taken to WP:RSN, not adjudicated here. --Lexein (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep thanks to the brilliant expansion by MQS.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:35, 24 October 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.