Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Tunnel (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. ✗plicit 03:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article consists of a single line plot only description of a 17 year old minor independent horror film that is not of any notability. Nominating for deletion under WP:NOTPLOT Binarywraith (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The state of the article is not how notability is decided. For films it should pass WP:NFILM, which states that 2 reviews by independent, reliable critics are needed. This article has links to 2 reviews from sources that are considered reliable for Wikipedia...the New York Times, and DVD Talk. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as well as the DVD Talk review there are also full reviews at Horror News here and at Dread Central here which are both reliable sources for horror films, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The three reviews from The New York Times, DVD Talk, and Dread Central are all reliable, independent, secondary sources that constitute of significant coverage. I personally disagree that Horrornews.net is straight cut RS, it has no editorial policies, but given there is existing conesnsus at WikiProject Horror it would qualify as a reliable source. Therefore, four refs count towards WP:GNG. On WP:NFILM IMO only the critic at The New York Times isnationally well known, I don't think the rest qualifies, so WP:NFILM criteria 1 is failed, others also don't apply here. Nevertheless, this seems to be a GNG pass. VickKiang (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2022 (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.