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. NW (Talk) 00:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Teenagers Must Die![edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stupid Teenagers Must Die! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks multiple, independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage demonstrating notability for a Wikipedia article. A bunch of reviews from highly nonnotable, trivial fluff sources only proves the complete lack of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that long list of sources at the end is EXACTLY the kind of crap nothing content sites with no notability and trivial coverage that DO NOT meet Wikipedia's standards in any way. In fact we ought to work on getting them added to the spam filter so people like you can't try to promote them as reliable sites. Fangoria would be notable, by a MySpace blog claiming to be Fangoria isn't necessarily, and we'd need a site to an actual printed review for verification, and even there we need more to meet our minimum criteria. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That Myspace page isn't claiming to be Fangoria, it is a Myspace profile for the movie. Whether not that blog or profile is fan made or not is completely irrelevant (though the owner of the profile might find themselves under violation of copyright law if it is fan made), but it shows that the movie has been reviewed in that publication. "we'd need a site to an actual printed review" is shown in that Myspace page. The movie has been in a magazine/publication twice, which establishes notability. OC Weekly is reliable, as well as Fangoria. And both happen to have wikipedia pages! How are they not reliable? You may argue that the other publications aren't reliable, or whatnot, but the fact that two reliable publications have done an in-depth review on this movie, proves that this movie is notable. Nevertheless, I vote keep. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that people use "common sense" when what they really mean is "exactly the oooposite of what our policies actually say"? "Near unanimous keep the previous time around" means absolutely nothing, especially with so many accounts whose sole purpose here seems to be voting Keep on every article on AFD regardless of merit. Some of these accounts should really be blocked from AFD by now for disregarding policy and disruption. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You count Fangoria as a non-notable fluff source?! That is quite possibly THE magazine when it comes to horror films (I actually have a stack of back issues ready to put on the shelves I built for my library). Anyway, such a statement reveals lack of expertise in this area. No one with any even remote knowledge on horror films could dismiss that source and it has a regular review of the film, not a mere mention in an article about some other film, but a straight up review specifically of it, i.e. non-trivial coverage in a reliable source. Please do not make frivolous nominations. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage demonstrating enough notability for an article. If you agree that only "some" of the sources are notable, then we ought to remove all the unreliable ones and see what's left, which is next to nothing, and certainly nothing demonstrating a reason to have an article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in reliable source Fangoria is in-depth and non trivial. The article in reliable source OC Weekly is in-depth and non-trivial. One source would be singular. Two sources is multiple. Further, neither guideline nor policy state or even imply that a reliable source has to be itself notable.
    From WP:RS" "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made"
  • The common sense being denigrated above allows editors to actually think and weigh guideline and policy when forming opinions. When dealing with a horror-genre-specific source, if such can be seen as generally reliable and credible in regards the horror genre, the level of their reliability may be considered in context to what is being asserted and sourced. One would not expect them to be even minimally reliable if they were writing about politics or history, but an editor IS alllowed to consider if they might have an acceptable level of reliability when they write about their field of expertise: IE: horror films.
  • The coverages offered by Fangoria and OC Weekly are significant, in-depth, and definitely non-trivial. All other sources being called trivial, are themselves significant, in-depth, and non-trivial... and they further support the notability already established by the significant, in-depth, non-trivial coverages of Fangoria and OC Weekly. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Mr. Schmidt. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Courteously and politely disagreeing with a nomination is no reason to have one's comment labeled as disruptive... nor is simply disagreeing with a nominator a valid reason for an editor to be topic-banned from AfDs. Had any editor voicing a keep been themselves rude and accusatory, it would be a different matter... as incivility is never to be condoned. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not: Is this film "notbable" in comparison to Saving Private Ryan, but is this film notable as an independent, low-budget film? And the answer is obviously "yes". Even with the loss of appropriate independent reviews from sites which review the out-of-the-mainstream-- which is where one would seek a review for such a film-- the film's screenings at film festivals, and its winning of two awards at a notable film festival make it obviously "notable" according to any rational definition of the term. The Fangoria review seals it: Fangoria is a major, national publication on the horror genre. Fangoria's review of the film confers notability-- in the real world sense. If Wikipedia's definition of notability steps up and says "No, the real-world authorities are wrong, we know better than them, and we say it is not notable," then we do not have a rational definition of "notability". In truth, however, it is not Wikipedia's definition that is at fault here, but its overly-literalistic interpretation, which, if acted on, would create bias.
Why is this article up for deletion for a second time after a few months when the first ended in withdrawal of nomination? Nomination for deletion articles on notable subjects wastes the nominator's time as much as it does editors whose time could otherwise be spent contributing content. The nominator of the previous AfD had the honesty to see he had made a mistake and to admit it. He withdrew the nomination. I hope that current nominator also has such a capacity for self-reflection and, for the good of Wikipedia, withdraws this needless AfD. If he does not, then my vote is Keep Dekkappai (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be so condescending. The spam tag was left because some of the refs are still iffy (3,4 and 9 are questionable at best). Good sourcing is still a must no matter how bad the movie. Reviews are fine as long as they are notable - none of them were. - Josette (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"notable" is not the criterion for reviews, nor even that their sources be notable. The requirement is that they been from reliable sources for the subject, and give the work significant coverage. Obviously the better known the source, the stronger the case, but notability of it is not the standard. In specialized genres, owe can expect sources which will be specialized and appropriate only for those genres, and they may not meet our normal requirements--this has long been accepted by science fiction, where certain blogs, as defined by experts in the subject, have always been accepted here. Not knowing the field, I cannnot comment on the specific sources here. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you don't like my choice of words. I left the references 3, 4 and 9 because they are possibly well known enough - in other words - notable enough blogs. Reviews must be from a somewhat reliable (notable) source to be good enough for use in an article on Wikipedia - even in an article such as this. - Josette (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS DGG: Notability is a related notion here, if not the exact concept, if a site is not notable, we can think that perhaps it's not relevant what that site thinks. We are not a collection of links. The "spammish" tagging the article gets in the links section is valid. Josette (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Horror genre experts would quite logically be the sources to seek for horror genre reviews. Some research on a few a the sites available for consideration...
  1. Evil Dread review by Jayson Champion: A reliable source for reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  2. This is Some Scene review: According to a bit of actual research, I find "Guerilladelphia - A Declaration of Independents! Guerilladelphia has developed ThisIsSomeScene.com to report and review the entertainment world in true Guerilladelphia style! R. James Ippoliti created Guerilladelphia and This Is Some Scene and is joined by Chris Blake Sasser, Kristin Theckston, Andrea Fix and Adam Young in covering entertainment news, reviews and interviews. We are in the process of adding to the Guerilladelphia crew of writers."... and then they share a list of editorial staff. Nope, not a blog. Blogs do not have editorial oversight. Other editors are free to follow the links and see I am cazy or making this up.
  3. Dorkgasm offers a review by their senior staff writer Kenneth Holm. Editorial oversite. Not a blog. Not SPS. No more user-driven than the New York Times. Dorkgasm reviews horror genre films. The article is about a film. Makes sense to me.
  4. Fatally Yours has an editorial staff. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  5. Fatally Yours offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film. Not a blog. Not an SPS.
  6. Fatally Yours also does an in-depth review of the film too. Not a blog. Not an SPS.
  7. Horror Society review is also another by a source that specializes in reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a bblog. Not SPS.
  8. Killer Reviews offers a review by staff, not by users. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  9. Movies Made Me Do It offers a decent review, and invites commenets, however it too is not a blog. Not SPS. To use the reader comments would be wrong. To use the staff review would be appropriate.
  10. Killer Reviews also is one that offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film. Not a blog. Not a SPS.
  11. Film Arcade offers a staff review and then accepts reader comments. Staff review, okay. User comments, not okay.
  12. Dead Lantern offers an in-depth staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  13. Scream TV offers a staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  14. The New York Times as least shows the film is not a hoax. Not a blog... or is it? Hmmmm...
  15. DVD Resurrections offers an editorial review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
  16. Horor-Fanatics offers a review and release informations. Not a blog. Not SPS.
More research underway. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these sites just are not influential. With an Alexa rank lower than 500,000 and less than 120 inbound links for the whole site, Fatally-yours does not appear to be a source that many people go to. So the fact that it reviewed a movie in depth, while interesting, even complimentary to the site's staff for their hard work, isn't really important to our readers. If a site is not "notable", we can think that perhaps it's not relevant what that site thinks. We are not a collection of links. The spammish tagging is valid. I kept the sites that have significant traffic or that appear to have at least some influence. But I removed the ones (whether blogs, fansites, or whatever) that are used nowhere else in the project and that have low traffic, such as Fatally-yours. Many are worse. Dorkgasm for example has only 20 inbound links. As Erik says, we should be providing only external links that are important and relevant, not every external link we can scrape up. Josette (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity outside the genre is not a measure of reliability. I appreciate that you are doing some research, but WP:RS does not say anything about influential or popular or notable... nor does it say that a site must be judged by Alexa traffic counts. That you feel a resource must itself be "notable" in order to to be considered... is not what WP:RS says or implies.
Fatally Yours was founded in 2003 and has an established pubication record [1][2]. Editorial staff include genre-specific experts Sarah Jahier, Dana R. Davidson, Gabrielle Faust, Jude Felton, Voodoun Romance, Theron Neel, Dr. Royce Clemons, Jeffrey J. Timbrell, Willy Greer, and Mitch Emerson [3]. The site as a horror genre site is recommended by Readers Voice [4]. The site is itself used as a reliable source by other reliable sources [5]. It is their expertise in the field that qualifies them, not Alexa traffic counts... though in noting popularity, the site receives over 8,000 unique visits each month from readers who go to it for information on Horror genre films[6]. Any editor who disagrees that traffic counts are the only suitable measure of reliability, may feel free to return the removed source. What's important to Wikipedia readers is being able to verify outside these pages anything written within them. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fatally-Yours.com is unreliable because it is a self-published website run by horror film fans. These people are not authoritative when it comes to horror films. Just because fans come together does not bestow them with credibility to review films. In addition, the Google News Search shows other ways the term is used. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a review is self-promoting SPAM, then that can certainly be addressed. If the link is not self-promoting SPAM, then it would serve the project to better determine just what it is, rather than painting them all with the same brush. Guideline accepts that certain SPS may be considered reliable. It'd serve the project to determine which ones are okay. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (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.
More