Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solstice (film)

:{{la|Solstice (film)}} ([{{fullurl:Solstice (film)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solstice (film)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Fails WP:MOVIE. This film exists (one can rent it from Netflix) but it went straight to DVD in the US and had only a limited foreign release; I can find no reviews of it in rottentomatoes. I prodded it but the prod was removed in favor of a redirect to Daniel Myrick (its notable co-writer and director) by DGG. As for whether it should remain a redirect or be deleted altogether, I don't especially care, though I lean towards deletion, but I think we should discuss it as a deletion because either way the content of the article should be gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion. This article has been on Wikipedia with regular edits since it's release, why now the sudden need from two individuals to delete it? The claim of a "redirect" from a previous user was a full and complete deletion after two years of existence, and a redirect to a page having little to do with the film and nothing of note on the source article being redirected. Leave the film.
  Oppose Delete, oppose inadequate redirect to unrelated page.
  A side note; despite the claim, the film was NOT direct to video, the film had limited theatrical release in the United States.Lostinlodos (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• To answer your question "why now?": my attention was drawn to it because someone with the same name as one of its writers has been misbehaving in the complexity theory articles here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Musatov and :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Martin.musatov. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Dear Mr. Eppstein, you are a female. Good day. --Martin Musatov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.4.112 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Question dilemma: Does someone want to make the case that it isnt suitable for even a redirect? In that case it belongs at WP:RFD, with the other questioned redirects. Or is the question whether to have a redirect or an article? That doesn't belong here either--it's an editing question. Here is a microcosm is the question of how we handle things like this: what we have in our procedures simply does not make sense. The only thing that actually belongs here is things that if they weren't suitable for an article would be suitable for nothing. Perhaps the idea to make this article for discussion, and consider all issues together, wasn't a bad one after all--we would then merge RfD and requested merges into this, and be able to consider all the options openly. I'm at a loss otherwise how to make sense of this except to continue to call this AfDeletion, but treat it as the place for all major questions involving article suitability. Is that what we actually want to do? DGG (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Clearly WP:RFD is the wrong choice: Lostinlodos insists on it being a full article. I think the full article he wants to have here should be deleted. Once it is deleted, I don't care whether the name "Solstice (film)" remains unused or is redirected, but I think the content is below threshold for keeping. Since it's about keeping or not keeping a whole article's worth of content, I think AfD is the right place for the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• I wouldn't worry, we're not a bureaucracy. Doesn't really matter where the consensus is developed, just that a consensus is developed. I mean, the fact that the talk page of the article is devoid of posts is worrying, but we are here now, so here we all are. Incoming links probably merit a redirect rather than deletion. Deletion based on WP:V doesn't seem beyond the realms of policy though. Hiding T 12:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment::I'm not stuck on the full article, I'm taking shots at a redirect that points to nothing to do with the film. I'm all for a redirect if you want you vengeance against the op; I take issue, and post accordingly, with people who delete articles and redirect to pages that don't cover the article. When I look up Solstice (film), and get redirected to another page that doesn't cover Solstice (film), then it's not a useful redirect, nay a disservice to the user. We delete, or we don't. I still oppose deletion, but would encourage any redirect to COVER THE ITEM BEING REDIRECTED.Lostinlodos (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The claim "This film exists (one can rent it from Netflix) but it went straight to DVD in the US and had only a limited foreign release;" is a form of systemic bias. A film is no less important if it received theatrical release outside the US and it also doesn't matter whether it went to theatres or straight to DVD. If the article says "However, it received a theatrical release in Russia, the Philippines, Mexico and other countries." then the correct course of action is to seek coverage in those languages (or inform the people with the right language skills). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• I might find that argument more cogent if the film came from one of those other countries, but it is American. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• SPEEDY Keep for goodness sake. That it existed without being properly sourced is a shame... but absolutely no reason to delete if it can easily be addressed by WP:CLEANUP. Reviews by experts in their field, qualified to voice an opinion: [http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/1148/review Bloody Disgusting], [http://www.best-horror-movies.com/solstice.html Best Horror Movies], [http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/solstice-dvd Dread Central], [http://www.esplatter.com/reviews.php?id=762 E SPlatter], [http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/reviewsnews.php?id=4116 Shock Till You Drop], et al. And no, these reviewes are not from the New York Times (which does not review every film ever made), but still from respected experts in the horror genre... themselves reliable sources with editorial oversite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

:Why was this even brought here? Per WP:AFTER the rescue was quite easy. It had/has in-depth press coverage in reliable sources. It has in-depth reviews by genre experts. It has world-wide release. I just gave it some tweaks and am frankly quite baffled as to why this was even nominated. The briefest look at [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Solstice%2C+Myrick&cf=all Google News] alone shows dozens of articles about the film. What gives? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Sufficient sources have been added, but I tend to agree with MichaelQSchmidt above - it was easy to source, (a quick search on Google news proved this, but given the director it was always going to get sufficient coverage), and I'm not sure why there was a debate in the first place. - Bilby (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Good rescue by MQS. I should have looked, not redirected. David E should have looked, before trying to delete Neither of us did it right. MQS did it right. DGG (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• I did look. All I found were unreliable-looking website reviews (many of which have now been linked as sources in the article) and two articles in Variety and the Washington Post long before the movie was made saying that it was Myrick's next project. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, I accept you looked. Fair enough. However, the sources that you felt were "unreliable-looking" have been discussed at length in other AfDs (of which you could not have been aware), and were determined to be reasonably reliable sources for the context offered, not being SPS and having editorial oversite. They are no more SPS than are New York Times or Rotten Tomatoes... they just happen to be genre specific, which is acceptable, as long as there is oversite and they are accepted by their genre as being expert in their genre. They were dozens more sources found and specifically NOT used... appearing to be blogs or forums. The ones offered were not so. And sidenote: the Washington Post and Variety sources will better serve the article when moved to a section on background and planning of this film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

SPEEDY Keep as per rationale of MichaelQSchmidt. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. After so much enthusiasm from the !votes above, I took a look at this supposed rescue. One article in the Washington Post has a trivial mention of this film as Myrick's next project. One article (now removed) in a small paper wasn't even about this film at all — it was about a different Myrick film in the Solstice Film Festival. The rest appear to violate WP:SPS. I still see no real reliable sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• See above. Wiki does not expect Rotten Tomatoes or Wall Street Journal to look or act the same... all that is required is a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversite. And, as experts in their genre, they qualify. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Snowball keep sources added since the AfD are RS by wiki's own definitions. Ikip (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• David Eppstein: I have a question for you as a concerned Wikipedian the people of Wikipedia ought know that by merely circumstantial evidence it appears more than likely you have a vendetta perhaps or vested interest in deleting this article in some context with your Computer Science work and how this entry plays into your coding. I have noticed there is a strong tie between the back and forth and you have banned at least one user related to P=NP who is associated with this film. There is plenty of room on the Internet for data and knowledge. Mr. Eppstein, how does the inclusion of this article violate the vested and shared interest of Wikipedia and the public?76.168.74.57 (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Dear sockpuppet: please assume good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Granite thump (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to rescue effort per WP:V. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Snowball keep Following improvements noteability seems very well established. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

: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.