Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 13th Alley (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is that coverage that exists satisfies WP:NF. Michig (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 13th Alley[edit]

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. Result of previous AfD was "sources are available", but they are insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bobb_Hopkins#Selected_filmography. The last AfD claims that there was a NYT review, but I can't find evidence of this having existed. (Note to others, this is why you need to add these sources to articles or link to them at the AfD because there's no guarantee that they will be visible in the future because newspapers and websites like to archive content!) I'd argue for a redirect since there's enough here to where there could be a decent, albeit weak, argument for notability if 1-2 more sources (specifically reviews) were added. Since it's possible that the NYT review does exist and redirects are cheap, redirecting with history would make it possible to easily recreate this in the future if/when the sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, since there's another review now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep per snow keep and notability established per consensus at last AFD. Sorry nominator, I understand your perhaps frustration that it was not done, but (agree with it or not) our notability guide WP:NEXIST tells us that notability is established by sources being available,[1][2][3][4][5] and not upon their ever being used. That a New York Times review is not brought forward does not make the others magically vanish. While it would be delightful if this 2008 independent film had the coverage of some major studio's highly touted blockbuster, that is not a policy nor guideline requirement. Again, sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are probably the most relevant, as they are reviews. But does coverage in Mountain Express and DreadCentral amount to "significant coverage" making the subject worthy of note for an encyclopedia? Both sources have niche audiences. I don't think this satisfies WP:NFP. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Central is a pretty major horror website. It's one of the top ones on the Internet, along with Bloody Disgusting and Fangoria. Shock Till You Drop is as well, although the site doesn't look like it used to now that it goes to ComingSoon.net as its main page. Basically, it's a pretty well thought of horror website (it won a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award, among other recognition) and is very well known in the horror community. The Mountain Xpress is a smaller newspaper, but the thing here is not whether or not the paper is niche but whether or not it'd be seen as a RS on here - which it looks like it should be, given that the paper has an editorial staff and the review is by a staff member. It's enough to where I'm changing to a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see that one review makes a movie notable, i.e. worthy of note. Has this been established by precedent perhaps? The coverage needs to be substantial, and I think it's not found in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are incorrect to demand substantial, as it is neither a guideline nor policy mandate. What IS per guideline is that coverage, even if only through reviews, deal with the topic directly and in detail. It does. WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps for now although I may add Delete with it later, I'll gone with this for now since there's still not enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? Are you somehow suggesting that WP:NF be rewritten? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage identified above is sufficient for a close pass of WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2016 (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.