384:- And I'm not sure what this is all about. Articles have to be about subjects that are notable in their fields. This film was produced by two individuals who have done other work, stars actors who have done other work, etc. In the chronicles of Danny Dyer's life, this is a notable stepping stone, as it is in the life of the two directors, both of whom are notable. The fact that it was a terrible movie, or at least one that was derided by critics, doesn't really speak to the notability here. Again, it's not like I made a movie and am saying that it is notable even though it didn't make it to the theaters.
361:(the two "reviews" are from a podcast and a website which accepts submissions with virtually no editorial oversight). I have no problem with withdrawing the nomination if you can provide enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. But I'm pretty sure that's going to be difficult to do about a direct to video film by a non-notable director. And I certainly have no issue with being
493:. The coverage out there is insanely light, but I did find enough to pass guidelines. We have two reviews and some coverage that covers the film's announcement. It's not the best coverage and I will say in the defense of the nominator, not all of the sources that come up in a search are immediately identifiable as good RS, since places like Flickering Myth can be easily seen as a SPS.
222:
case of, let's say, me making a home video with a few friends of mine and saying that even though it went straight to DVD and didn't hit the theaters, that it's notable. I mean, the fact that one can find references to the film online (which are included in the article) demonstrates to me that this has met the notability requirements of
Knowledge (XXG)."
420:. Even then it can be difficult to really assert that they've reached that level of notability. I don't really see where any of the people involved in the film have reached that level of notability, which is nearly impossible for any person (past or present) to achieve. Heck, I've seen people argue against the creation of
321:- film easily and objectively passes notability criteria, and the film can be substantiated as notable with a simple Google search. Proposed deletion is merely a poor attempt at solving the issue of a poorly constructed article by those who'd rather complain about the article's deficiencies instead of being
524:, "If sources publish materials only online, then their publication process and/or the authority of the author should be scrutinized carefully." So I don't think it passes #1 of NFILM: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Thoughts?
221:
The prod was removed with the following rationale: "I have no relationship with this film other than having seen it. But a film made by a filmmaker who has made other films and if there are actors in the film that have been in other films -- to me, that makes this notable. It's very dissimilar to a
585:
The general rule of thumb is that we can use any critic that is listed on RT's critic tomatometer. As for
Flickering Myth, we can use stuff like that if they have editorial oversight and can be seen as a RS, which I think can be shown by it being listed as a RS in an academic text.
468:. Now I will say that this review was a repost of something that was published on a personal blog, but by large Nerdly seems to have good editorial oversight. This one is sort of a toss up, which is why I rarely use it nowadays, but I'll run it through RS/N.
434:
421:
357:- Not sure why you had to make it personal. You created the article over 5 months ago, with no visible signs of improvement during that time. The citations which you have recently added are tangential mentions about the film, or from non-
457:
424:
and the article was successfully deleted. That's how hard it is to argue for inherited notability. Even
Stephen King has trouble asserting inherited notability. Now that said, I am finding some things here and there, namely
178:
411:
by notable people that have worked in/with the movie. Sometimes if a person is particularly noteworthy their whole body of work can be considered noteworthy but that person has to be an extremely influential person like
209:
I prodded this a couple of weeks ago with the following rationale: "While difficult to research because of the commonality of the name, could find nothing on any of the search engines which shows this film passes
255:
225:
Regardless of the deprodding rationale - film still does not pass notability criteria. Direct to video, nothing I could find on search engines to show this particular film is notable.
131:
172:
640:
that looks like it may either have been a botched upload or maybe they just didn't think it worth completing. You never really know with a direct-to-video Danny Dyer film.
456:
is also something that'd probably be considered a RS and it's one that I'd consider usable for the most part. It's not the strongest source, but its founder (Phil Wheat)
277:
556:. News-source blogs are acceptable, and while reviews by (subjective) "nationally known critics" are nice to have, they are not a guideline mandate. Under
430:
138:
104:
99:
108:
302:
as News and browsers found some links but it seems it was not noticeably attention-grabbing so there may not be much to better improve this.
91:
193:
160:
17:
627:
154:
626:. I don't really agree with the idea that the cast makes it notable, but I added two more reviews. Also, according to
708:
40:
461:
150:
689:
649:
645:
618:
597:
576:
535:
504:
479:
448:
392:
376:
346:
313:
291:
269:
247:
73:
686:
573:
95:
408:
200:
308:
286:
264:
549:
520:- But the two reviews are both from non-RS sources (a blog and a website with no editorial oversight). As per
437:. However I do have to say that arguing for notability via inherited notability just won't work in this case.
365:
and improving an article, as long as the article appears noteworthy, which this one doesn't come close to.
609:. The cast easily makes it notable enough. We invariably keep films with casts as notable as this one. --
666:
521:
704:
641:
590:
497:
472:
441:
36:
545:
465:
426:
166:
679:
614:
566:
87:
79:
303:
281:
259:
186:
674:
211:
453:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
703:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
658:
322:
55:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
587:
517:
494:
469:
438:
417:
670:
561:
553:
215:
610:
413:
386:
327:
662:
557:
358:
61:
525:
366:
336:
237:
226:
564:, and if that is met we do not then look to non-mandated "attributes to consider".
218:. There is a film by this name which came out in 2015, but it is not this film."
125:
631:
636:
677:
is encouraged, perhaps we should have training seminars in its application.
460:
via his writings for
Blogomatic3000. Nerdly has also been mentioned on
697:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
630:, it got some publicity from offline sources. There was also
407:
Well... part of the issue though is that notability is
335:
Please note that this editor is the article's creator.
121:
117:
113:
185:
256:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
199:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
711:). No further edits should be made to this page.
429:from Flickering Myth, which has been mentioned
8:
276:Note: This debate has been included in the
254:Note: This debate has been included in the
275:
253:
278:list of Film-related deletion discussions
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
669:with speed of improvement is not a
458:has been listed as a RS in the past
24:
661:and the topic shown as meeting
1:
690:07:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
422:an untitled Stephen King book
236:23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
74:02:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
659:notability being established
650:14:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
619:13:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
598:05:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
577:21:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
536:12:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
505:10:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
480:10:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
449:09:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
393:02:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
377:22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
347:22:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
333:18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
314:09:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
292:09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
270:09:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
248:23:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
433:and used as a reference in
728:
700:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
325:and making it better.
88:Assassin (2015 film)
80:Assassin (2015 film)
382:Response to Comment
671:deletion rationale
435:this academic text
349:
294:
272:
59:
56:non-admin closure
719:
702:
682:
642:NinjaRobotPirate
632:a sort-of review
594:
569:
532:
529:
501:
476:
445:
418:Steven Spielberg
389:
373:
370:
343:
340:
334:
330:
311:
306:
289:
284:
267:
262:
244:
241:
233:
230:
204:
203:
189:
141:
129:
111:
71:
66:
53:
34:
727:
726:
722:
721:
720:
718:
717:
716:
715:
709:deletion review
698:
680:
592:
567:
530:
527:
499:
474:
443:
414:Edgar Allan Poe
409:WP:NOTINHERITED
387:
371:
368:
341:
338:
328:
309:
304:
287:
282:
265:
260:
242:
239:
231:
228:
146:
137:
102:
86:
83:
67:
62:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
725:
723:
714:
713:
693:
692:
652:
621:
603:
602:
601:
600:
582:
581:
580:
579:
560:we begin with
550:WP:USEBYOTHERS
539:
538:
508:
507:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
451:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
379:
316:
305:SwisterTwister
296:
295:
283:SwisterTwister
273:
261:SwisterTwister
207:
206:
143:
82:
77:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
724:
712:
710:
706:
701:
695:
694:
691:
688:
687:
684:
683:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
638:
633:
629:
625:
622:
620:
616:
612:
608:
605:
604:
599:
596:
595:
589:
584:
583:
578:
575:
574:
571:
570:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
537:
534:
533:
523:
519:
515:
512:
511:
510:
509:
506:
503:
502:
496:
492:
489:
488:
481:
478:
477:
471:
467:
463:
462:Dread Central
459:
455:
452:
450:
447:
446:
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
419:
415:
410:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
394:
391:
390:
383:
380:
378:
375:
374:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
351:
350:
348:
345:
344:
332:
331:
324:
320:
317:
315:
312:
307:
301:
298:
297:
293:
290:
285:
279:
274:
271:
268:
263:
257:
252:
251:
250:
249:
246:
245:
235:
234:
223:
219:
217:
213:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:Find sources:
144:
140:
136:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
81:
78:
76:
75:
72:
70:
65:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
699:
696:
685:
678:
673:, and while
654:
635:
628:this article
623:
606:
591:
572:
565:
526:
522:WP:NFSOURCES
513:
498:
490:
473:
466:Screen Daily
442:
385:
381:
367:
362:
354:
337:
326:
318:
299:
238:
227:
224:
220:
208:
196:
190:
182:
175:
169:
163:
157:
147:
134:
68:
63:
49:
47:
31:
28:
637:Radio Times
588:Tokyogirl79
546:WP:NEWSBLOG
518:Tokyogirl79
495:Tokyogirl79
470:Tokyogirl79
439:Tokyogirl79
427:this review
173:free images
611:Necrothesp
388:DRosenbach
329:DRosenbach
705:talk page
681:Schmidt,
675:WP:BEFORE
667:impatient
568:Schmidt,
37:talk page
707:or in a
665:. Being
212:WP:NFILM
132:View log
39:or in a
593:(｡◕‿◕｡)
514:Comment
500:(｡◕‿◕｡)
475:(｡◕‿◕｡)
444:(｡◕‿◕｡)
355:Comment
179:WP refs
167:scholar
105:protect
100:history
562:WP:GNG
554:WP:OEN
454:Nerdly
431:at AMC
300:Delete
216:WP:GNG
151:Google
109:delete
663:WP:NF
558:WP:NF
544:Read
516:- Hi
359:WP:RS
194:JSTOR
155:books
139:Stats
126:views
118:watch
114:links
64:Davey
16:<
657:per
655:Keep
646:talk
624:Keep
615:talk
607:Keep
552:and
531:5969
528:Onel
491:Keep
464:and
372:5969
369:Onel
363:bold
342:5969
339:Onel
323:bold
319:Save
310:talk
288:talk
266:talk
243:5969
240:Onel
232:5969
229:Onel
187:FENS
161:news
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
69:2010
50:keep
634:at
416:or
214:or
201:TWL
130:– (
52:.
648:)
617:)
548:,
280:.
258:.
181:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
644:(
613:(
205:)
197:·
191:·
183:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
153:(
145:(
142:)
135:·
128:)
90:(
60:–
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.