Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blades (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 no consensus, default to keep. A split between those commenting here, and some evidence of notability provided by additional sources, though the critical reaction should be incorporated into the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blades (film)

Doesn't appear to be a notable film. Despite being released by a marginally notable developer, it seems to have no notable actors at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Sorry, but this commercial DVD release from a very highly regarded distributor (Troma) is not lacking notability for its genre. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is definitively lacking; there is certainly none demonstrated in the article itself. At best, this should be merged into Troma; in any event, WP:NOTINHERITED is a sufficient response to Ecoleetage's point. Any argument to keep should at least reference and satisfy WP:FILM, and I doubt it can be satisfied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would respectfully disagree with the previous comments. The lack of recognized actors is not unusual for low-budget films of this genre (think of Night of the Living Dead, Carnival of Souls, The Blair Witch Project, etc.). The film has been reviewed fairly extensively by the media that covers this genre (links are included and a Google search will bring up more). And the fact it is in commercial release from one of the most celebrated distributors covering the genre would seem to contradict any perceived lack of notability. I think the previous reference WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't fit at all. A film that is widely reviewed and is in commercial release is notable. This small film's cred checks out. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ecoleetage's improvements (sources to reviews) to the article that verify the notability of a B-class, but still commercially produced, genre film. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not been paying attention to the notability of films. Have we adopted a guideline? Unfortunately, the link above points toward the Wikiproject. Cheers, 70.126.47.211 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)<< Dlohcierekim 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)>>[reply]
- That's a common mistake, you're right that WP:FILM refers to a WikiProject. The notability guideline for films is shortcutted as WP:MOVIE. Sorry for the confusion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Dloh cierekim 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response More links added, including the Rotten Tomatoes database entry for the film. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (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.