Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pit Fighter (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pit Fighter (film)
It is unclear why this film passes the standards of WP:NF. PROD was removed without comment. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Pit-Fighter. This film is a spin-off of the notable video game, Pit-Fighter. Bláthnaid 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, definitely notable. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Namely why? i.e., which criteria of WP:NF does it pass? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- [1], [2], [3], [4], The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- For the first one: David Nusair seems to be wider known; for the second: is J. D. Nguyen really a nationally known critic? The last two are user-generated content, they certainly don't qualify under WP:NF. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this now seems to be quite bureaucratic. One or two or three critics like on the fish market. What do you think with user-generated content, what do you think that the distribution is? Selling from the car directly on the parking? Throwing from the plane? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's the level that WP:NF sets: two reviews by nationally known critics (as you cited). The consensus is two reviews for notability, not one. (That's similar, for example, to requiring two published albums for a notable band, cf. WP:MUSIC.) With user-generated content, I was referring to the customer reviews at Amazon and CD Universe, which are posted by users of the website. These self-published reviews are not deemed to be reliable sources; see WP:SPS for an explanation why. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Those last two are examples that it is widely published. Not reviews. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- [1], [2], [3], [4], The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Namely why? i.e., which criteria of WP:NF does it pass? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I'm inclined to err on the side of keeping the article, mainly because it appears to (barely) meet the requirements of notability. There are critical reviews, though not many. And, the film was apparently distributed widely. The article is badly in need of cleanup, though. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
