Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever's End (2nd nomination)

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) 04:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forever's End

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable ~~artist~~ film. Primary sourced promotion lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Closest it gets is an interview with the director in a PRNEWSWIRE feed. No sign of any independent reviews, eg. Prod removed giving no helpful reason. (previous afd was for different subject) duffbeerforme (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see nothing about this film, the name hits in Gbooks [1], but nothing about a film. AFFM Magazine is the closest to a RS we have, the rest aren't helpful (primary or non-RS). We don't have enough about this film. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sourcing isn't the greatest. I found a review from Film Threat. AMFM seems like they're probably OK - they're used as a source in this Taylor & Francis book as well as books from Palgrave Macmillan UK and Bloomsbury. It's been kind of difficult searching for verification on them due to their name throwing up a bunch of false positives, though. They've interviewed some pretty major people, one of which was highlighted by Blabbermouth, which I think is a RS on here, which is a good sign. The Fancine award isn't major enough to give total notability, but I think it would likely contribute towards it. With the two reviews, Fancine award, and some light coverage, I think this squeaks by NFILM. Not the strongest keep, but an OK one. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, I think the film was submitted through FT's review program and if so, that would make that unusable. Can anyone verify that? I am still leaning towards a weak keep based on the review and award, but it's tentative. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Film Threat explicitly states "This film was submitted for review through our Submission for Review system." So, yes, unusable. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film Threat and AMFM reviews are reliable sources and that makes this pass WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 01:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at the state of the source at the time of the above article, The problem is AMFM partners with PRNewswire with no indication of how and I see no sign of their editorial staff. What's PR and what's not? And where is their staff of writers, did they have anyone other than Bears Fonte? And this individual article, whilst filed in Movie Reviews, is actually an interview with the director so largely primary. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's changed since then but it still looks like they have only one writer. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I didn't see that - I'm striking my argument. I'm going to see if there's a place to redirect this. It doesn't seem like it was classified as a horror film so List of horror films of 2013 isn't really a good fit. Dread Central is the only RS I've seen use the term horror, but I am hesitant to call this horror without the director/crew describing it as such. It looks like it was one of those films that never wanted to align itself with horror exactly and preferred to say it was more a drama or thriller. Maybe List_of_thriller_films_of_the_2010s#2013? There's the more general page of List of American films of 2013, but I've never had any sort of confirmation as to whether or not we can include non-notable films there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as article creator: This film (note: this is not an artist as per the nomination statement) is what we can consider "bubbling–under" notability. It has a singular notable cast member and has screened at the Austin Film Festival but not after five years. The director and other lead actress faded from existence, and no critical reviews at RT. I wrote the article after seeing the film, on Amazon IIRC, so considered it noteworthy enough if they streamed it.

Note to nominator: please be civil by notifying article creators when nominating anything at an XFD.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I went back the next day I saw that a bot had notified you so I left it like that, but my apologies for not notifying you earlier. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems unlikely that a consensus will develop to keep the article, but I don't see a consensus for deletion either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Donaldd23.

Edard Socceryg (talk) 00:47, 10 June 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.