Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday Prophecy

Add links
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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday Prophecy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Doomsday Prophecy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film that does not have significant coverage, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DVD Talk is a reliable source, bluray.com has not been assessed as far as I know, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Though the cast are notable, this has no major coverage outside of routine tv listings, and no major reviews. Not sure about Blue-ray.com, though DVD Talk might be reliable I do not think it is enough for this article on its own. Only other source I could find was a passing mention at The Hollywood Reporter on the announcement of the film, but I do not think that is enough. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd have to say a definite no on the reliability of Blu-ray.com, which is clearly an online video store whose reviews are no more notability-making than the user comments on an Amazon product or an IMDb page — whereas DVD Talk would probably be acceptable as one source in a mix of solid sources, but isn't strong enough to get a film over the notability bar all by itself if it's all we can find. And otherwise, all I'm getting is TV listings, a glancing acknowledgement of this film's existence in coverage of a completely different film Jason Bourque tried to make after this one, and purely coincidental text matches in articles that were actually about the Roland Emmerich film 2012. Nothing helpful, in other words. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is a keep from me, but only as I've seen the film and I think it's a low budget classic. There are listings on well known UK sites like RadioTimes.com and plenty of reviews on Thrillist and well known B-Movie sites, but I think this is a case of region-specifics. I think it's more well known in the UK. Asangersgrant (talk) 2219, 15 June 2021 (BST)
    • A listing on a database like RadioTimes does not contribute to significant coverage of the topic. I would be interested in seeing the reviews from Thrillist and others if you could list them. BOVINEBOY2008 22:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The film has an entry in this German language reference work: Hans Messias, Horst Peter Koll, ed. (2012). Lexikon des internationalen Films - Filmjahr 2011. Schüren Verlag. It also has an entry in Clive Davies (2015). Spinegrinder: The Movies Most Critics Won’t Write About. Headpress. It's enough to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not confident the first source constitutes as significant coverage. It seems like it purely lists films that were released on Blu-Ray, basically a reference source and not actual coverage. The second is interesting! BOVINEBOY2008 10:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that point of view. However, I think its inclusion within an academic lexicon of films shows a certain degree of significance. Granted it's a source that lends itself more to including this film in a list as opposed to a stand alone article. However, the other source is a review; so in balance I think we could build an article with these two sources and those cited above.4meter4 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Outside of Sharknado, almost no Syfy Saturday night TV movie is going to pass WP:GNG/WP:NFILM/WP:TVSHOW. The article's current two sources don't get it there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:44, 30 June 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doomsday_Prophecy&oldid=1032853182"