Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackals (2017 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackals (2017 film)

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

A non notable movie with fan sites and blogs as references. My own independent search didn't yield anything to warrant notability from WP:RS.While the main actor is notable it doesn't necessarily mean the movie is notable too since Notability is not inherited.

The first reference is an announcement about an actor joining the film and nothing about the movie.
The second reference is also an announcement of an actor being part of the movie.
3rd reference is also an announcement with nothing meaningful to state about the movie. TalkMe (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable due to significant coverage from multiple third-party sources. There are four "Top Critics" reviews for the movie on Rotten Tomatoes, and there is nothing wrong with sources that detail a film's development and production. Notability means that reliable third-party sources found a topic worth noting, and there are many instances of that here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:MOS There is a consensus against using the "Top Critics" scores at Rotten Tomatoes.... It also states; The Top Critics" section on Rotten Tomatoes is a smaller sample size and may be statistically inaccurate. TalkMe (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant to this at all. Rotten Tomatoes aggregates a wide range of film critics to calculate their score (and thus for us to report in the Wikipedia article), but the so-called "Top Critics" are the ones that can and should be referenced directly in this Wikipedia article. This is completely separate from whether or not to report the RT score. So we have reviews from Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, RogerEbert.com, and the Tribune News Service. Metacritic shows Slant Magazine as another review. There is also a review from Bloody Disgusting, which has precedent to reference. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeeP Film notable for reasons mentioned above. The film is currently being played on most OnDemand services such as Charter. It also has received 1000s of ratings on IMDB so people are watching it. In addition, numerous critics have written about the movie both on IMDB and elsewhere. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds a lot like WP:BIGNUMBER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the arguments for Keep above are fairly weak, I think there's just enough here to be suitable for an article; the overall 'is Wikipedia improved by not having this' answers to 'no'. (Unfortunatly MichaelQSchmidt seems to be on Wikibreak, otherwise I'd toss it in his direction and expect miracles to be worked.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 7 November 2017 (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.