Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reboot (2012 film)

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 delete. J04n(talk page) 18:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot (2012 film)

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

WP:NOTFILM. No sources in article indicating significance. Searching for Reboot "Martin Copping" (first star listed in article) gets zero gnews hits, the ghits are a small handful of self-published reviews, material on the film's official site and sites of those involved, and databases. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The same person who created this article also recently created several other articles about films with Martin Copping in them, including Rise of the Lonestar Ranger, Forbidden Ground, Victory Blvd, and Sheep Impact; as well as at least one TV series (The Violent Earth). Alphius (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not relevant to this discussion, but it also seems highly questionable that he played "Baby in Hospital" when he was at least 20 years old. Alphius (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and probably delete at least most of the other articles I mentioned as well. After looking around some more, it seems that the majority of the contents of the articles created by this person have been copied directly from IMDB summaries. Alphius (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem here is that while indie films aren't expected to have as much coverage as the big Hollywood movies, they do have to have at least some coverage. I found a review and an interview, but most of what else is out there tends to be of the non-usable blog type. There's a picture of a brief bit in SFX magazine on the movie's Tumblr page and I do see where Geeks of Doom reviewed the film, but I don't really see either as entirely usable as a RS at this point in time. I'd like to find some mention of the SFX bit on a non-primary source (ideally the SFX website) but am unable to find anything and I'm not really sure that Geeks of Doom is usable as a RS. If someone can verify that both can be used somehow then this might be enough, but until that comes I'll have to vote delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I've done some cleaning and correcting on the main article for Clopping and there is a serious issue of notability for the actor and many of the films created that he starred in. While I can't automatically state how notable or non-notable all of the film articles are, I did notice that at least one of them (Elegy for a Revolutionary) doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines for films, giving me the impression that this might be a walled garden for Clopping. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are interviews at TekGabber and ScreamingByte. While the content is good, I am not sure if they can be considered reliable sources to help establish notability. I think that the SFX source identified by Tokyogirl79 is reliable and a point in favor of the film's notability, but it would help to find similar such sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Find sources:

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

Question: How many reviews in genre sources reflect a cult following or cult notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the key drawback of these reviews is that they do not have a real publisher. As for the "Context matters" caveat, I do not think it operates on that kind of sliding scale. It seems most applicable for specialized topics like history and the sciences. I do not think we would consider these reviews reliable to use if it was a clearly notable film that already had some mainstream reviews. The absence of these mainstream reviews here does not mean to me that these other reviews are suddenly able to step up. It is a bit of a tough call because we can see people talking about these kinds of movies, but that's also the case with a lot of other media, may it be certain books or YouTube videos. It is media that gets reputable attention that crosses the threshold to have an article on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a quantity of reviews situation as much as a sourcing of reviews. Certainly, there are cult film sources that achieve sufficient import in their field that they can be credible indicators of notability (Video Watchdog, for example, or perhaps the late Psychotronic Video, although that had problems as an WP:SPS.) I don't have time at the moment to dig through those and figure out if those are just unread blogs or if some of the carrying enough respect to confer notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability; there is not sufficient coverage from reliable sources for this film. It is clear that this film has been covered in amateur circles, but besides the brief interview in SFX, I am not seeing coverage that puts it across the threshold of notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 7 May 2013 (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.