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. asilvering (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recoil (1998 film) (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)

Was PROD’d for lack of general notability and WP:NFILM; an IP editor removed the PROD tag with the edit summary “Gary Daniels and Robin Curtis…” so now we go to AfD. The only mention I could find beyond the usual churn of IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes was a blog called Unknown Movies which does not cut the mustard in my opinion. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Usually movies are easy. There are huge "movie guide" books with casts, productions, and potted summaries, and "DVD guides" and so forth. But this one appears to have escaped inclusion in any books that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: added things. A redirect to the director was warranted anyway and a PROD certainly not appropriate. Meets WP:NFILM. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Three of the references you added were to WordPress blogs and have been removed. I disagree that the sources provided show the sufficient coverage to establish notability per this language from the guidelines: “Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides.” (emphasis added) Kazamzam (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (the 2 sources hosted by WP have been removed but were used only to verify the film was called a B-movie). For the rest, PRECISELY, the OTHER sources I added in the Reception section are reliable and include "critical commentary"!!!!! And that's pretty obvious. -Mushy Yank. 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mushy Yank - the other reference used was to a publication by Books on Demand which is generally not considered reliable or suitable to establish notability. Also removed. The references you included from TV Spielfilm and Filmdienst fall under the category of a capsule review ("a relatively short critique of a specified creative work") and Schnittberichte seems to be another blog. So I disagree that these are reliable or that they establish notability per the WP:NFILM criteria. Kazamzam (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even without the material you judged appropriate to remove during an AfD you yourself initiated (and that was, again, not used to establish notability but for verification, in an attempt to improve the page), I still think that we have enough with the 3 sources. Of course, Filmdienst is reliable, for example. If others think a Redirect is better, I also mentioned that possibility. Opposed to deletion. I have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With sourcing, my rule of thumb is to only add sourcing that would be considered reliable by most or all Wikipedians. I tend to avoid SPS unless I can find where the sourcing or the writer has been cited as a RS multiple times in academic/scholarly sources (or other appropriate sourcing). The only exception would be for interviews, however I try to only add those after notability has been more firmly established. My rationale for this is that adding SPS or dubious sourcing can actually end up making an article seem less notable rather than more, even if it's being used to back up basic, non-controversial information. As far as capsule reviews go, I consider a capsule review to be a 1-3 sentence review where all but a handful of words are a plot summary.

Looking at the reviews in the article, Filmjahrbuch 2000 and TV Spielfilm are pretty short and would be considered a capsule review by most. Filmdienst is a bit of a wild card, as I get the impression that the snippet we see is a summary or a smaller part of a longer review given the clickable box that says "to the film review". Clicking that brings up a paywall and part of a first sentence ("Because his youngest son was looking for a...") that is slightly different than the first sentence in the snippet. So this one is probably usable - it also helps that out of the four sentences in the snippet, two are wholly review and not summary. That's one usable review, so then it becomes a question of what else is usable.

Schnittberichte is unusable. It's all user submitted content and while there are moderators, they are only looking for violations of the ToS. The site itself says that they are not liable for anything written by their editors, so that means that there's no editorial oversight of the content. In other words, view it as you would IMDb.

MovieWeb is Valnet. Much of their stuff is considered to be questionable as they tend to rely heavily on churnalism and AI content. WikiProject Video Games has a whole section about it as far as sourcing goes. The gist of that section is that Valnet sources are weak at best and are not great for establishing notability. I would say that MovieWeb would likely be considered situational per WP:VG's sourcing guide. With that in mind, this appears to be written by a staff member and there's a decent amount of discussion within the article to consider it a review of sorts. I would say that it's usable but not the strongest source.

Tiempo de hoy is unknown - I can't get a good glimpse in the snippet view to know if it is usable or not. The Video Source Book would be a capsule review, so a trivial source at best. Flickering Myth is a decent source, but it's a trivial mention so also can't establish notability.

That leaves us with two sources: Filmdienst and MovieWeb. Both could be considered reviews. Technically that's all we need to pass NFILM, two reviews, but it would be an extremely weak pass. I'm going to see what else I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - thank you for your thorough analysis of the sources, ReaderofthePack. I had come to the same conclusion about the Filmdienst one being but a snippet of the full review that is behind a paywall, so that's one source to go towards WP:GNG or WP:NFO criterion 1 The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. I would say that it's a stretch to say that the MovieWeb review constitutes a "full-length review" (particularly as it's part of a top ten-style report). That leaves Tiempo de Hoy. We say that it's a weekly news magazine that, from 1987, tended to cover news about culture, entertainment, economy and sports. So it seems likely that it would have nationally-known film reviews in it. However, I too cannot see inside the book (which I guess is a compilation of published magazines) to establish whether it is a full review. I did also find this, in Chinese, also rather short. Taking all that into account, and given the age of the film the fact that any full reviews would more likely be in print media that is less likely to be online, I would give the benefit of the doubt and hence a weak keep. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, we're at a Weak Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:00, 28 March 2025 (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.