Talk:Aimy in a Cage

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2014. The result of the discussion was Move to draftspace.

Sources

The film apparently came out in January 2016, but I have been unable to find many sources. I have:

Plus various blogs. I haven't found any actual reviews.

Since the article was draftified as the result of AfD - as an alternative to deletion - on the promise that adequate sources to demonstrate notability would be added before it was moved back to mainspace, I have reverted the move to mainspace. It needs to have sources added before it goes back to mainspace, and I don't see the caliber of the sources above as being adequate. What else is out there that can be added? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like the sourcing for this film is pretty thin, here's a few more, and with these I think this article could be salvageable. I'll work on it later (give me a day or two) and then let's see how it looks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BitBeat: Bitcoin Helps Filmmaker Create Celluloid Heroes The Wall Street Journal (Blog)
Aimy In A Cage Filmink
Aimy in a Cage Rotten Tomatoes
Aimy in a Cage Starburst (magazine)
The only two films ever made using just BTC Get Bitcoin
Movie Review: “Aimy In A Cage” Aims For Hallucinatory But Winds Up Rabid Irish Film Critic

Excellent, you found a review! Dated today - Google may not have indexed it when I looked. One more like that and one or more of the Bitcoin articles and the article will definitely be salvageable. Maybe someone will even have reviewed it positively :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable changes

In this edit I reverted changes made by Vvvyzooo. I don't see a reasonable justification for the removal of the Rotten Tomatoes average, which helps to provide much-needed context for the aggregator's overall review percentage. Context is what helps us to maintain a neutral point of view. There was also no obvious justification for removing the 1/10 review from Starburst. Again, context helps us to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm not taking a stance yet on whether or not Urbancinefile.com.au should even be included. At first glance it looks like any-old-blog to me. We don't typically include blogs as references, because any halfwit on the internet can start a blog and proclaim himself an expert on any given subject. We only care what mainstream sources with established reputations have to say about anything. The Irish Film Critic reference ([1]) is dicey to me. Vvvyzooo, if you wish to explain your decisions and argue for why Urbancinefile should be considered, this would be the place to do it. Please don't restore your changes without achieving consensus, though, as that would be disruptive. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Cinephile strikes me as a self-published blog, but I'm not entirely sure about Irish Film Critic. That was added by a former admin, so I figured I'd give it the benefit of the doubt that maybe she saw something that I didn't. I wouldn't miss it as a source if it were removed. FilmInk is almost certainly a reliable source: this article in The Australian calls it "a beloved magazine" that ran for 20 years before going online-only. Starburst is a British magazine, and, of all the sources, is probably the most reliable. I can see absolutely no reason at all for its removal. Similarly, I can't understand why we wouldn't mention the Rotten Tomatoes average score. If there's a problem with the RT average rating, it should be brought to RT, not censored here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]