Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odds Are...

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odds Are... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. I could find no reviews for this film that was not widely distrubuted in cinemas and released directly to VOD. The sources are too weak to show it passes GNG. Maybe redirect to Peter Markel's page. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have included 15 different references. That is already more than most Wikipedia pages have. This film was just released so it might be nice to give people some time to actually view it and write more reviews about it before trying to eliminate it. Reviews are not even a necessary requirement for a film page. There are countless film pages on Wikipedia without a single review or even reference, but this page has 15 references. --Nicholas0 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nicholas0 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
• Comment I checked out the sources added after the nomination and they are 3 blogs (Vashivisuals, flixchatter, filmchecker) 2 of routine coverage without any critical comment (Screen daily and Ramolawpc the second is a copy of the first), a trailer without comment (freestyle) a tweet from someone the director used to work with no comment about the film, and the 3 VOD pages some with user generated comments (cinequest and amazon). The blog reviews do not meet the criteria #1 IMHO. If only it were the number of sources that mattered things would be much easier and we wouldn't have to go through them when reviewing new pages. Also we have to remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable keep argument. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think Domdeparis has done a good job of analyzing the sources to show that they don't pass muster. @Nicholas0: On Wikipedia, quality of sources is key to notability, not quantity. Do you have any sources that pass the standards set by WP:NFILM? Just two or three will do. It's a lot of work to go through a bunch of crappy sources, and I find that deletion discussions become much simpler once narrowed down to the best sources. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 02:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fully agree with above. The sources have already been carefully analysed by Dom. At this stage, it is for the creator to point out sources that give in-depth coverage. SpinningSpark 17:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to director article Peter Markle as a categorized {{R from film}} as suggested by nominator. Title is a valid search term that would be created, had it been requested at Wikipedia:AFC/Redirects, there is no need for outright deletion. Can be rewritten if and when sources to support the notability guideline for films becomes available. Sam Sailor 06:44, 18 October 2018 (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.