Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far From the Apple Tree

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. Notabilty seems to rest upon the reliability of Nerdly as a source. I find no consensus regarding this, and therefore no consensus in this deletion discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far From the Apple Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Only claim to fame is that it went to a few film festivals - Manchester and Dundee - but this doesn't show WP:NFO or WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from Groundsell, and as such this Vogue interview does not contribute to notability here. (Same for Daily Express, which is moreover an unreliable tabloid.) Done a BEFORE and not found anything not in the article, other than a source about appearing at the Edinburgh Film Festival (ProQuest document ID 1906937966). — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not meeting any WP:NFILM criterias. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: So far I'm leaning towards a weak keep for this one but I keep waffling on this. Eye for Film is generally seen as a RS - Anton Bitel wrote for them for a while - and there's some coverage from places typically seen as RS for the most part. It's just not a really solid keep for me and I'd rather keep plugging away for sourcing and clean up the article before I make any final judgement. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I found another review, this one by Nerdly, which is a decent source. Not the strongest possible one but decent enough for RS purposes. I think that there's just enough here to justify a weak keep on my part. I'd like for there to be coverage from more strong mainstream horror/fantasy sources but what's here is fine for the most part. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your research, ReaderofthePack. I think Nerdly is borderline usable, and EyeForFilm too, but these are not enough for me to support "keep". Horrified looks not to pay its contributors, and ModernHorrors is written by "volunteer content creators", so I'm not seeing these as contributing to notability. Does this roughly match your assessment? — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty much the gist of it. If I had one really good, strong source it'd be better but right now the sources are all sort of "meh". Enough on the decent side for a weak keep but only just. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Several unreliable sources do not make a topic notable; had it won an award, a notable cast or crew, or achieved something historically significant worth noting these sources might have sufficed. But (at least to my knowledge) as none of those are true for this film this article relies solely on its coverage, and it largely lacks RS. EyeForFilm is the only undisputed reliable source, and while that is certainly good, it is not enough on its own imo. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is enough coverage in reliable sources to just pass WP:GNG such as Nerdly and EyeforFilm, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Atlantic306's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 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.