Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurassic Shark

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. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Shark[edit]

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

No notability, no Rotten Tomatoes rating, virtually empty IMdB listing, flopped and unremarkable 'straight-to-DVD' B-movie. Yintan 11:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep and fix. It may be a crappy movie, written by a little-known director and with a little-known cast, but so what. A film's notability is not dependent upon having notable production members, but rather on being covered in independent sources in a more-than-trivial manner. Just a little research find this film spoken of in sources acceptable for indie horror films such as Dread Central [1] (and yes, many that are not so reliable). What serves the project is addressing issues and not deletion. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 16:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A C-Film that got a lot of negative reviews. The WORST film ever made ... as one of them wrote. But in the moment he wrote this, he made the film notable. There is no criteria in WP:MOVIE that says, a movie has to be good to be notable. --Ben Ben (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see plenty of unreliable sources, but not much else except for the Dread Central article, which is short and about the film's trailer, not the film itself. Even if you accept it, it's still just one source. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable, unremarkable movie, lacks coverage and its only reliable coverage is from Dread Central, other sources are unreliable or have passing statements. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry... but even for a film that is "unremarkable" if you check you'll find that Fangoria and JoBlo have been determined as reliable for such, and both discuss this one in a somewhat more-than-trivial fashion. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 13:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The fact that this movie sucks has no bearing on its notability. I've seen worse articles on lesser movies. Atrian (talk)

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.