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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Naked Monster[edit]

The Naked Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A few mentions of this existing, including one in the NYT, but no reviews, no discussion of it at all other than it exists. This article has no sources for a reason, apparently none exist. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup... been expanded and retitled by the filmmakers. Original title: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per (sorry Sven) errant WP:BEFORE. This film meets WP:NF. The nominator missed that the film screened as film festivals[1] and actually did have genre coverage. IE: In-depth critical commentary found in articles in such as DVD Talk Dread Central and others,[2][3] and its contents can be verified in such disparate sources as Washington Post and Napa Valley Register I would ask the nominator consider a withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not withdrawing this. Let's go though the points one by one.

1) How the heck is anyone supposed to know that this was called Attack of the B Movie Monster? It's not in the Wikipedia article. For the sake of discussion, it's not in any of the other articles you linked to.

2) The first thing you linked to, a The Modesto Bee article, is behind a paywall, and nothing in front of the paywall indicates that the article is on topic.

3) DVD Talk does not appear to be a reliable source. On top of that, the review is done by a friend of the director for the director. I did see this one ahead of time, and discounted it entirely as unreliable COI.

4) DreadCentral lacks the obvious COI of DVD Talk, but I still don't view it as reliable.

5) The Napa Valley Register is a passing mention; it's an item in a list of movies he did, with no discussion on the movie itself. Ergo it's not a source.

6) The Washington Post - Okay, you got me there, I didn't see that.

All I see in the way of reliable sources is one paragraph in the Washington Post. I'm sorry, but that's not enough, I'm not going to withdraw this. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You need not believe me, and you may choose to discount them, but DVD Talk and Dread Central are accepted as reliable sources for such genre films, and those two as offered above are quite in-depth article about the film. And too, M. J. Simpson (now in the article) is another in-depth review from a genre RS. There are more that can and will be used to source and verify the article's contents (it is now IN WORK, after all), but Wikipedia has no mandate that an independent low-budget niche horror film have the same coverage as Star Wars. Withdraw as the article is improved, or not... I predict snow in August. Thanks for your input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Talk and Dread Central have been used as reliable sources many times in the past. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly has the sources and content to indicate it meets our film requirements. Thanks to the great expansion work by Michael Q this is pretty good now even if it is a "ultra low" budget film. I also questioned Dread Central Sven when I wrote the Dolph Lundgren article but I looked about and it appears it is respected in the horror film world.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And by the by, neither M. J. Simpson [4][5][6] nor Glenn Erickson of DVD Talk [7] nor Melissa Bostaph of Dread Central [8] were in the film, yet they chose to write about it at length and in great detail. Add these independent sources to Washington Post[9] choosing to make note of the film directly and in detail and we have our meeting of WP:Notability (film), even for a cheesy comedy spoof film by an independent. But again, the nominator need not agree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeatedly making veiled jabs towards me will in no way help your argument, and will indeed only make this process more acrimonious. I strongly advise you to stop. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Schmidt showed the film's notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DVD Talk reviewing DVDs does not equal having a conflict of interest with DVDs. Just like Dread Central has no COI with horror movies. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CraveOnline operates Dread Central and according to the article, they only choose qualified reviewers. Joe Chill (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks to me that this is at best the bottom edge of passing the general notability guideline, all of the sources are weak. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DvD talk article / Dread central - is questionable if these counts as a reliable independent source
  • The google search to books just points to names in a list, nothing more can be said about that, please actually brinsg sources to discussions, don't just assert them
  • Washington post - One paragraph in a very-edge-of-thepaper dvd review section
  • Napa Valley - this isn't about the movie, it's about the man.
  • Do we accept www.mjsimpson.co.uk as a reliable source?
    • Bottom of the edge? So what? It's an "ultra low budget film". Even if it minimally meets the notability guidelines, there isn't much more that people can expect. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I highly doubt that DVD Talk and Dread Central are not independent. If that was the case, they wouldn't even be used in many articles as of now or helped AfDs end as keep. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) @Joe Chill: You're misunderstanding what I meant with COI. I was referring to the line "**Full disclosure: I've known Ted for years. And yes, I am speaking to him. " from the DVD talk review, which in my mind, disqualifies the review as COI. Friends writing reviews for friends, even if the platform is acceptable, is unacceptable IMO. My issue with Dread Central had nothing to do with COI, that was an issue of professionalism, or what appeared to be a lack thereof.
      • @All: As far as I am convinced, the Washington Post is the only truly reliable source this has. In light of Dr. Blowfeld's support of it, I suppose Dread Central is passable. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm also well satisfied that this now meets the general notability requirements. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Source: Here is a DVD Talk review by a different reviewer - http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/23396/naked-monster-the/. Joe Chill (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note sure about reliability - http://www.dvdresurrections.com/MovieReview_TheNakedMonster.html
  • A review from a popular radio show called Dead Pit. They were even able to get A Nightmare On Elm Street star on their show (homepage). - http://www.deadpit.com/reviews/thenakedmonster.html
• keep because multiple unconnected sources are cited. This is not the place to judge sources' merits, but whether the existance of sources prove it's notable. TimeStandStill (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn - Let me be clear here, this has nothing to do with Michael Q. Schmidt's asking me to reconsider. On the contrary, I found Schmidt to be unpleasant to communicate with, take great offense to his comment re: BEFORE, and most certainly do not look forward to coming across him in the future. That being said this transformation is staggering. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thanks to all who assisted in expanding and improving this article to better serve the project and its readers, and also to the nominator for the withdrawal, even if he feels me "to be unpleasant to communicate with". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt is a top bloke Sven and one of the friendliest, but deletion threats and warnings from other editors generally tend not to be a recipe for friendly banter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.