[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cosplay Fetish Battle Drones ( | 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)
A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Of the included sources, the only one that is a full length review is not from a reliable source. The rest are just small blurbs that could not really be considered a full review. Searches using both names the film was released under did not turn up any kind of coverage or reviews in reliable sources that would indicate being able to pass WP:NFILM. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Didn't find any in-depth reliable coverage either. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: the coverage on the BFI website is quite significant; review at Horror News ( https://horrornews.net/95064/film-review-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones-2013/). Significant coverage here: http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/2014/05/28/sci-fi-london-2014/. Cannot really access the rest, except a review on a blog and the interview in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. The director has no page yet. A DVD exists. Another interview with the director can help develop the page: http://www.searchmytrash.com/cgi-bin/articlecreditsb.pl?gregggolding(4-14) for verification and production. All in all, I consider it's a notable cult film. I didn't search very hard and might look for more if I have time. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- + http://www.silveragepoets.com/music-and-else ; https://www.mrman.com/b-movie-boys-sci-fi-sexiness-in-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones---6428 (caution: might be not safe for work; can be considered expert blog; see author) ; https://projectedfigures.com/2014/12/31/struggled-reagans-2013/ (might be considered Expert SPS) ; or https://www.mondo-digital.com/sickpicks32.html (same comment). Mentioned there: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/001-trolling-is-possibly-the-craziest-movie-ever-made-about-the-internet/ All in all, the film does pass GNG and/or NFILM imv. FWIW I am willing to add those sources to the page and cleanup and expand the page with that material or with other sources that will be suggested.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - A lot of those sources are ones I found in my searches that I either did not consider to be reliable sources and/or not full-length reviews - many of these are just a paragraph or less, which I don't see as passing
WP:NFILM's requirements of a "full-length" review. But, I would be happy for others to weigh in on whether or not they would be valid for establishing notability.
Rorshacma (
talk)
20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Regarding HorrorNews.Net, for example, it's a full review (in their style) and the site is considered reliable by the project Horror (see also two threads at the Reliable sources noticeboard, the latest one insisting that especially pre-2020 reviews (roughly; after which they seem to have accepted to make paid reviews) may be considered acceptable; and that particular review is to terribly negative that I don't suspect a minute it was not independent). Many of the other include a paragraph (significant) or less, true, but some, more (see BFI website, which I find significant). I included a few sources that are obviously not independent, to show the article can be improved/verified. I should have organised this or maybe edited the page directly, but I started here, "first to knock, first admitted". Again, thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - A lot of those sources are ones I found in my searches that I either did not consider to be reliable sources and/or not full-length reviews - many of these are just a paragraph or less, which I don't see as passing
WP:NFILM's requirements of a "full-length" review. But, I would be happy for others to weigh in on whether or not they would be valid for establishing notability.
Rorshacma (
talk)
20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as there is reliable sources coverage such as Sight & Sound and Horror News and others that combined shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Early !voters - please review and comment on the greatly expanded sourcing and content added since the AfD was opened. Thanks!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cosplay Fetish Battle Drones ( | 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)
A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Of the included sources, the only one that is a full length review is not from a reliable source. The rest are just small blurbs that could not really be considered a full review. Searches using both names the film was released under did not turn up any kind of coverage or reviews in reliable sources that would indicate being able to pass WP:NFILM. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Didn't find any in-depth reliable coverage either. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: the coverage on the BFI website is quite significant; review at Horror News ( https://horrornews.net/95064/film-review-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones-2013/). Significant coverage here: http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/2014/05/28/sci-fi-london-2014/. Cannot really access the rest, except a review on a blog and the interview in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. The director has no page yet. A DVD exists. Another interview with the director can help develop the page: http://www.searchmytrash.com/cgi-bin/articlecreditsb.pl?gregggolding(4-14) for verification and production. All in all, I consider it's a notable cult film. I didn't search very hard and might look for more if I have time. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- + http://www.silveragepoets.com/music-and-else ; https://www.mrman.com/b-movie-boys-sci-fi-sexiness-in-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones---6428 (caution: might be not safe for work; can be considered expert blog; see author) ; https://projectedfigures.com/2014/12/31/struggled-reagans-2013/ (might be considered Expert SPS) ; or https://www.mondo-digital.com/sickpicks32.html (same comment). Mentioned there: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/001-trolling-is-possibly-the-craziest-movie-ever-made-about-the-internet/ All in all, the film does pass GNG and/or NFILM imv. FWIW I am willing to add those sources to the page and cleanup and expand the page with that material or with other sources that will be suggested.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - A lot of those sources are ones I found in my searches that I either did not consider to be reliable sources and/or not full-length reviews - many of these are just a paragraph or less, which I don't see as passing
WP:NFILM's requirements of a "full-length" review. But, I would be happy for others to weigh in on whether or not they would be valid for establishing notability.
Rorshacma (
talk)
20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Regarding HorrorNews.Net, for example, it's a full review (in their style) and the site is considered reliable by the project Horror (see also two threads at the Reliable sources noticeboard, the latest one insisting that especially pre-2020 reviews (roughly; after which they seem to have accepted to make paid reviews) may be considered acceptable; and that particular review is to terribly negative that I don't suspect a minute it was not independent). Many of the other include a paragraph (significant) or less, true, but some, more (see BFI website, which I find significant). I included a few sources that are obviously not independent, to show the article can be improved/verified. I should have organised this or maybe edited the page directly, but I started here, "first to knock, first admitted". Again, thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - A lot of those sources are ones I found in my searches that I either did not consider to be reliable sources and/or not full-length reviews - many of these are just a paragraph or less, which I don't see as passing
WP:NFILM's requirements of a "full-length" review. But, I would be happy for others to weigh in on whether or not they would be valid for establishing notability.
Rorshacma (
talk)
20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as there is reliable sources coverage such as Sight & Sound and Horror News and others that combined shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Early !voters - please review and comment on the greatly expanded sourcing and content added since the AfD was opened. Thanks!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)