Talk:Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy

Notability?

The notability of this page is in question. First and foremost, it's merely a documentary on the film series. It contains interviews with the cast and crew about making the film. That's it. It's not a feature film, nor does it cover anything new that previous Nightmare documentaries have covered (there have been several books and one previous DVD). This is something that should be (and already is) covered at A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Documentaries. The simple fact that some online websites have "reviewed" the DVD does not make it worthy of its own page. Any professional, reliable reviews can be covered on the franchise article. Nothing other than "this documentary was narrated by Heather Langerkamp and contains interviews with the cast and crew" can, or needs to be said about the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been no significant coverage for this documentary. Only a press release, the official site, and two reviews have covered it. Information can fit perfectly fine at the franchise page. Even adding some reviews there wouldn't hurt. No need for another page, I agree. Not at this time. Or ever. Mike Allen 02:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree. I see absolutely no independent notability for this documentary nor necessity for it to have a separate article. Merge back to the franchise article, if any merging is needed, and redirect (at best). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Notability has not been established, and it certainly does not warrent its own page. No significant coverage. It doesn't help, either, that the sypnosis has been copied and pasted exactly how it is from the website which is cited. I don't think it conforms with WP:NFC.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that...that makes this a clear WP:COPYVIO which could be eligible for speedy deletion, though the merge/redirect would also solve the issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. If more resources can be pooled to talk about this from notable sources, then this page could be acceptable. As it stands, I do not think it really needs it's own article now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of reviews, the only thing people have talked about it what the DVD contains (interviews). Since it isn't a feature film, or a "true" documentary in the sense that there would actually be production information, I don't think it'll ever have enough to warrant a separate page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A mention on the franchise article should be sufficient for covering this documentary as it likely has little chance of being significantly expanded. It's impressive that the documentary is four hours long, there are not too many franchises out there that go into that much detail. For now, a merge/brief summary seems best. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it me, or is this page starting to feel like a reflection of the back of the DVD box for this documentary? Where do we all stand on the notability of this doc and the need for a separate page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article has more problems than notability now. A huge step backwards. Not that there was anything to move forward with... but wow. Mike Allen 21:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable, definitely

Just as has His Name Was Jason: 30 Years of Friday the 13th shown its notability as a horror genre documentary, so may Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy. Before this article is shuffled off and lost, let's see how it may be improved to better serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That article isn't notable either. It was redirected to the franchise article only only re-created a few days ago. There is nothing on that page but a list of what's in the DVD. Since we're not here to advertise for other people, it really holds no value. In addition, a topic isn't notable simply because it exists and just because this is a documentary on a horror film series doesn't make the documentary notable. It shows the notability of the film series. This "documentary" is nothing more than a DVD that contains the same type of "special features" you'd find on a DVD of any film. Would you create a separate page just for those special features?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability for new films is determined by WP:GNG. This article passes. That it is a documantary that covers other notable films does not demean nor diminsh its own notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the notability, but I think merging (as has now been done) is a good move. Whether this article is retained or not.  Chickenmonkey  20:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's notable NOW even it might not have seemed so earlier. I was not aware of nor informed of any merge as I continued to work. I had come to the article's rescue when asked by User:Joe Chill. In the last couple hours I have exanded and sourced the article, turning this into THIS and showing WP:GNG coverage in reliable sources. As the DVD was released less than two weeks agao, this artcle will further grow certainly. A merge and redirect of this now-shown-as-notable topic does not serve the project,nor its readers. I would protest any further attempts to do so, as the three paragraphs placed in A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Documentary do not do the subject justice and act to limit a reader's understanding of the topic. If editors still wish it done, let's take it to AFD and so open a wider discussion and reach a consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an AfD discussion, this is a notability and merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. The people at AfD regularly get annoyed by that very fact, and typically respond with "you should have a separate discussion about the merging of content". The info at the franchise page covers the info here. Just because it doesn't list every single person that provide an interview does not mean that it doesn't cover the same material. The info about the poster art and music can be added in (since it now has a source), and everything else as I said (exception being a needless list of individuals who appear in the film...let IMDb cover that) is covered on the franchise page. So, there's nothing lost but a needless list. Thus, the topic does not warrant an entire article to itself. As of right now, the consensus is to merge the page (which it was already merged before the page was created).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It is notable per WP:NF. WP:N doesn't say any notable page with a merge target should be merged (ironic, isn't it?) Anyways, where is this consensus? Considering all but one has seen the new version. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Criteria as listed:

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. (Fail)
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
   • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. (Fail)
   • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.(Fail)
   • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.(Fail)
   • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.(Fail) It is a documentary, but isn't featured in one.
3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. (Fail)
4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. (Fail)
5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. (Fail)

Additional criteria:

1. The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn) (Fail)
2. The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. (Fail)
   • An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there. (Fail)
3. The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited. This criterion ensures that our coverage of important films in small markets will be complete, particularly in the case of countries which do not have widespread internet connectivity (or do not have online archives of important film-related publications) and whose libraries and journals are not readily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia. In this case "major film producing country" can be roughly approximated as any country producing 20 or more films in a year, according to the report by UNESCO. Defining a "major studio" is highly dependent on the country in question. (Fail)

As you see...it actually fails all of the requirements for Film Notability. It's covered just fine on the franchise page and the only thing of even remote value that is missing is a list that IMDb keeps quite well for us. We don't list everyone that appears in a film in a cast section, so why would we list everyone that appears in this film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. It passes notability guidelines. Your use of inapplcable criteria as a means to dismiss a notable film is inappropriate. You may as well state it does not pass WP:ATH. To look at your "arguments"...

The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. (PASS) The film has had reviews by critics nationally to the horror genreknown for their expertise in the horror genre. Using subjective criteria for "nationally" or "known" is a sword that cuts both ways

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

Inapplicable to new films

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

Inapplicable to new films

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

Inapplicable to new films

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

Hardly applicable to a 12-day-old DVD release

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

Hardly applicable to a 12-day-old DVD release

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

Inapplicable to new films

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Hardly applicable to a 12-day-old DVD release

Additional criteria:

The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)

Pass as the film indeed asserts and sources its unique contributions.

The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.

Hardly applicable as the film is about notable films, and dozens of notable persons and their careers.

An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

Pass the information potential for this article would assuredly clutter up the article about the frqanchise. Or are you also suggesting that the other independently notable film articles should be pared down to a few paragraphs and merged as well?

The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited. This criterion ensures that our coverage of important films in small markets will be complete, particularly in the case of countries which do not have widespread internet connectivity (or do not have online archives of important film-related publications) and whose libraries and journals are not readily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia. In this case "major film producing country" can be roughly approximated as any country producing 20 or more films in a year, according to the report by UNESCO. Defining a "major studio" is highly dependent on the country in question.

Inapplicable to a US film by US filmmakers

I feel that you're stetching just a bit too far in your quest to redirect a notable topic, and seem to have forgotten that ALL guidelines need the use of WP:COMMONSENSE, and are not mutualy exclusive. Being worthy of note is being worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? Those are alternate things that can show notability. "topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." from WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And it hasn't received significant coverage. Read the definition of significant coverage at WP:NOTE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And WP:N doesn't say reviews and interviews aren't significant coverage. From the hundreds of film discussions that I participated in, you and your comrades opinions are quite bias. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And actually, it has indeed received significant and in-depth coverage... both pre-production and post-release... by genre reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between significant coverage, and coverage from multiple sources. Secondly, your "notable film critics" is a bit of a stretch itself. The people that review at Fangoria change depending on the film. Fangoria is a notable horror-related news outlet, but no specific critic on their staff is...not even their editor Michael Gingold. He isn't notable for being a film critic (whether he's notable at all is questionable). When they someone notable film critic, they're talking about someone like Richard Roeper, Rogert Ebert, or some one else that probably appears on Rotten Tomato's "Top Critics" list. Regardless, what I find funny is that you're trying to keep a page open where the only thing it has that isn't on the franchise article is a list of interviewees (which IMDb has) and a list of special features on the DVD, which you can find on vender websites that outline what the DVD contains. Wikipedia is the in the business of educating people on useful information, not simply listing trivial details about a DVD. Blanket listing of every person that appears on the DVD is neither true information, nor depriving a reader of something that would ultimately change their understanding of the topic should it be removed. Regardless, we'll just have to wait and see what more people think. Your opinion of what should happen to this page is different than mine, as is our understanding of what constitutes "worthy of a stand alone article". There is no point for us to debate back and forth between ourselves when nothing is actually going to change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sinificant coverage is significant coverage. Multiple significant coverage is multiple significant coverage. Hard to be confused. And wrong place to now start denegrating Fangoria as it has long been accepted by consensus and numerous discussions at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard that as a source it is exceptionally well suited for showing notability for horror genre films. You are doing us all a grave disservice when demanding that such as Richard Roeper or Roger Ebert have to review a newly released DVD film in order for it to be seen as notable. That is not per guideline, and most specially not per WP:GNG. Coverage in reliable sources to show meeting WP:GNG do exactly just that. Your acting above as if attributes otherwise intended for films that have been out for more than 5 years should be applied to films only days old is most decidely inappropriate. And what is or is not "worthy of note" or "worthy of a stand-alone article" is not to based upon your opinion nor mine... but rather upon policy and guideline... the policies and guidelines that recognize that Wikipedia is a work in progress... and absolute immediate perfection is not required, nor expected. The arguments being used toward a redirect of this notable topic can just as easily be used for every single film article spoken of in the Franchise article: "Hey... it can be reduced to a few facts and merged... readers can go elsewhere for the sourced information we could include here... yeah, we don't need to give them more than the minimum... yeah." Sorry, but that view acts to limit a reader's understanding of this topic, not expand it. Sorry, gutting a house because you don't think anyone would or could want to sit on the furniture only drives guests away. Ane we're here for them... the guests... the readers... not ourselves... and improving this project for them is supposed to be why we're here in the first place. As the article already surpasses the criteria set by the WP:GNG, your waving a red flag (or herring) in front of editors as you did above, by relating how it is non-notable because it has not been reviewed or archived five years in the future, makes no sense... as historical type criteria need be applied in a historical context in a yet-to-be future. Revisit those arguments on May 4, 2015... as they are a bit early for something 12 days old.

So let's see.... a documentary film created by a team of notable individuals... set to document a notable series of films through multiple inteviews of other notables and through the revealing of information about multiple notable films that had never before been made public. Wow. What would be totally amazing, would be if this film could not so easily assert and source its independent notability... being easily worthy of note through significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources. Or are you possibly contending that the expanding coverage will stop? Or that now-existing coverage will vanish? Or that coverage will not increase even more in time? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

References

RfC on Topic Notability AND Possible Merge

This is a discussion about the notability of the Never Sleep Again documentary and whether or not it needs its own article, or if it can survive at A Nightmare on Elm Street #franchise##Documentary. Additional opinions are requested.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Merge as already noted above. The minor sourcing added since my last remark still shows absolutely no real notability nor any reason why it needs a standalone article, and then only of some of the material here. Much of it is trivial and irrelevant (such as the "promotion" which is neither notable nor noteworthy - very common practice), and the excessive list of who said a word in the interviews (as already noted, seems like the back of the DVD box). As a side note, in the reception section, the New York Daily News reference is a one line mention in an article noting all the DVDs released in a week. Certainly not significant coverage, and not even a valid review. Fully support a merge, as already supported above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  Without the opinion of a journalist from New York Daily News, the article still has more than enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The film has been out for less than 2 weeks. Is your contention that it will never have any more coverage than it does already? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Although it's great that additional citations were added, I would still say that this should be merged into the main franchise article. As Anma says above, some of the information added is trivial, so just briefly covering the documentary in the franchise page would allow for pulling over the more credible citations. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  With respects, the articles for any of the independent films could be pared down to a few cogent paragraphs and then merged into the franchise article. WP:NF and WP:GNG recognize and descibe how a film shows independent notability. Less is not better if it limits a reader's overall understanding of a subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

• Keep Obviously a high-profile documentary in that such an extensive article can be sourced and put together mere weeks after its release. Coverage is already sufficient for a stand-alone article, and will improve as time passes. Merging would either add inappropriate detail to the main film article, or inappropriately delete perfectly valid, sourced information. No need to quote Wiki-scripture and verse at me, because I don't care about the rules people have written when they should have been writing articles instead: This is a good article, and it belongs here. Its removal would harm the project and people who come here seeking exactly this sort of information, and who, surprise, don't care about the rules you've cooked up either. Dekkappai (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep/Oppose Merge per the article already meeting WP:NF and it having potential for much further improvement.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral The contention that this is "just a DVD of special features" I don't think has anything to do with "notability". The nature of a film doesn't belie its notability. What matters is, I would think, has the film been covered -- or is there reasonable expectation that it will be covered -- by reliable sources? I know, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but in some instances it is advisable to ignore the rules. I also would ask, is it reasonable to expect this article to have more sources (as it already does have some sources) in the future? That's why I'm neutral on this.  Chickenmonkey  01:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Actually no rule to ignore. You pose a reasonable question. So let's examine the factors that might or might not garner continued or future coverage. Let's see.... we have a 4-hour 2-disc documentary film about a horror genre subject... created by a team of notable individuals... set to document the backgrounds and back-stories of a notable series of films through multiple inteviews of other notables and through the revealing of unique information about multiple notable films that had never before been made public. I think it is less of "crystal" and more of "common sense" to believe the reasonable expectation that even as recent sources have come forward, more will be forthcoming as this 12-day-old film gets wider release and becomes available to more individuals. My sense is that it is in contending the opposite that would seem to be at odds with logic. I do not think it reasonable to presume that the existing coverage might vanish or that coverage would not expand and continue as time passes. The singular noteworthiness of the topic would seem to assure more than mere words. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume you don't mean to, but you're coming off very negatively in your comments.  Chickenmonkey  07:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Ok is it me or does the Official site list just about everything this article list (even links to the reviews)? Not saying that the article contents were copied from the official site, just saying if the Wikipedia article is not providing anything that the official site isn't, what's the point in having the article? Mike Allen 07:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, speaking only for myself, I purposely did not even visit the Office website, so as to ensure that my work would not be colored by whatever hype they might be sharing. But since everything in Wikipedia must be sourced outside the project, and ALL the information within the project already exists outside the project, your question might as well be, what's the point in having any articles at all? To answer that, we read the opening instructions at WP:N, look to WP:GNG, and work to build an encyclopedia based upon policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing anyone of copying from the official site just noting that a Wikipedia article is redundant when the official site provides pretty much everything, if not more. I though Wikipedia was supposed to be more informative than, at least, the official site. Anyway, I didn't even know one existed until an hour ago. Most film articles have material on production, which is pretty much lacking from this documentary. The only thing this article provides is a directory of what the DVD contains and who presents the material ("cast") on the DVD. Also four reviews from notable websites and how it was promoted. Though I will warn that while Fangoria is reliable, the website is not, so if the citations are kept I would advise that they be web cited, because it's not a question of will the articles go down, it's when they will vanish.  ;-) Maybe the guidelines on documentaries are different and this is the sort of information that is "required" for such articles. The article does look better than a few days ago and more citations were added. I've been told that if an article has at least three reliable sites then the article is notable and has more of a chance to survive an AfD, but I just don't know about this one. Mike Allen 08:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be frank, until I was distracted by this RFC, I had found several in-depth interviews of the creators, from months before release, and which dealt with just those production elements you might wish to see... early production interviews and information not to be found linked from the Offical site as it turns out.[1][2][3] I'll get on adding much more production background in the morning, as it's getting on toward 1:30 AM here. And toward web citing of references that evaporate, could you drop me a note and advise how its done? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep No reason to delete this and replace with a redirect and a token if any mention on another page. Google news has some results [4]. Just look through that and tell me it doesn't seem notable. Dream Focus 08:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - While the list of people appearing in the documentary looks like its just fluff, there is enough independent coverage to justify a stand alone article. If there's something useful from this coverage, it can also be added to film articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Looks noteable enough to justify a dedicated article, and valueable content would likely be lost if we tried to cram the info into the main article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge - Certainly, the information in the article does seem to have been sourced now, but just because it gets reviews from notable websites, does not in itself make the film notable. I do not believe there is enough mainstream press coverage from other sources to warrant its own article. I believe it may be better off being placed in the franchise article, as per other documentaries in franchise articles, e.g. Friday the 13th (franchise)#Documentaries, whose notability isn't likely to extend beyond the time of release. Therefore I cannot see this article being extensive enough for it to warrent its own article. If there is more extensive coverage available, I believe it may then have its own article. This is just my opinon.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Will you revist your opinion once the article has been further expanded and sourced? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to give this article a chance, and then we'll see where it goes.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral...leaning more toward keep each day - Michael has done a good job turning this page around. I'm more neutral about its existence right now, because Mike has found more things that I was not aware existed (and I did some searching when the movie was in development). So, he's starting to change my mind on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  I expanded on the one-liner that was removed. It now imparts some decent infromation.[5]. And thanks for helping out. Many hands make light work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This isn't the way to get input. The proper way is via AfD. That allows those who patrol those pages, as well as the lists spawned by them, to provide input. All who patrol this page will of course know of it via the AfD notice on the page itself. I would say the foregoing even if there were not a canvassing issue. That there is such an issue makes it even more important. And, of course, no !vote is needed to bring a page to AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merger Editors of the proposed destination are advised, "This page is 85 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." As the topic here is quite substantial, it would be contrary to our style guidelines to add to this bloat. Wikipedia is not paper and is increasingly used on hand-held devices with small screens. We should keep articles correspondingly small and use links between them to provide information to our readership in digestible pieces. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? The franchise page is only 39 kb, and most of that isn't even readable prose (which is what you calculate for article size...not the number that appears in the edit box). The actual size of the franchise article is about 15 kb of readable prose. I'm not sure what page you were looking at hen you got the 85 kb number, but that's no where on the franchise article. I'm still neutral about its placement right now, I just don't like arguments about article size being misrepresented and thought I'd point that fact out so others don't assume that the franchise article is some behemoth that is super large and needs to be split up into multiple articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • He is welcome to correct me, but I think CW's concern is that a reader using a handheld and wanting to know about this particular film should not have then scroll through all those many snippets of information about all the other Elm Street film and project articles to then only find snippets about this one... and also then find no other article offering unique in-depth information aboiout the subject. Even as it is even now being improved to give the reader more contextual content unique to this individual film, we should allow it to remain a seperate article so as to meet its full potential over time... to better a reader's understanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep (Oppose merge and deletion): I feel a production section has greatly improved this article and is worth keeping. I feel it's now encyclopedic and provides at least more information than the official site does. I think readers will find this article usefull. Also ten sources is better than two. Mike Allen 00:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, per Schmidt.Chhe (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASING

User:Bignole has used a non-neutral notification to contact editors who have already opined for a redirection that they comment at this RFC, in violation of WP:CANVAS. [6][7][8][9][10]. And yes, his last contact was at Wikipedia talk:Notability [11], though perhaps his disqagreements with User:Joe Chill [12][13][14] may have something to do with wishing to get an edge in his initial notifications. His RFC happened after I left an as yet unanswered note on his talk page suggesting an AFD would get wider and more neutral input [15].

Time to end this tainted RFC and to send this article to AFD for wider input from editors who may be interested in film articles, but whom are unaware of its existance, as notification of this RFC and the sharing of his personal opinion and sharing how others already feel when makng that notification, smacks alarmingly of canvassing. Rather than notifying those with whom he feels already support his position, its time for input from those already not predestined to agree with a merge. Time for wider input from editors not contacted by User:Bignole with his rather loaded notice.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing non-neutral in his notes. He notified ALL parties who had responded previously, other than yourself who of course was already involved in the discussion, noting that more sources had been added and inviting them to either confirm or change their initial views. He also left notes at WP:N and WP:NF. The Films project was also notified, which is certainly those interested in film articles. Calling this canvassing is very bad faith, particularly when you support those who agree with you doing far worse, actual canvassing versus proper notifications. I see nothing at all here that "taints" this RfC, which by nature does go out to anyone interested in responding (they are automatically announced you know). You've also already been properly informed that AfD is NOT for merge discussions. Those who try to win arguments by making ad hominem attacks usually do so because they realize their arguments have no teeth. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

@ User:AnmaFinotera: Sorry, it IS canvassing. Specifically because he did not notify the author, nor any major contributor to the article. He notified those he knew would be pre-disposed to a delete or redirect. And worse, his notification made a point of mentioning that he wished it redirected and that others on the talk page has already opined for a redirection. That attempt at votestacking by use of a non-neutral message is in direct vioation of WP:CANVAS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on all of your opinions being the same, I wouldn't be surprised if there was offsite canvassing. Considering how other film discussions that I participated in went and how all these opinions go against WP:NF (while ignoring other sources, like you for instance). Since no one pointed to where it says that reviews and interviews don't show notability, your arguments are baseless. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael and Joe, you're absolutely right....I did canvass a note to get more attention. But where you are wrong is in claiming that I had some malicious intent to stack votes in my favor. First, you actually pointed out to me personally that the people that had left their opinions to merge had done so before you had updated the page and that they would need to review the page again. I did YOU a favor and contacted all of them to let them know that you had made some changes and that they may feel differently about the page should they look at it again. Secondly, my requests for comments on the community pages could not get any more neutral, and to the point, or they'd have just been "Hey, come to this page". Since you're typically supposed to tell people what they should come to a page for (i.e. we're having a discussion about notability and merging), I felt incline to let them know what it was about. I left no personal opinion of the page on the community pages, and the only reason I left on one Anma and the others' talk pages was because we all shared (at least initially) the same opinion. I was making it clear that I hadn't changed my opinion, but they could very well change their upon reviewing the page and I implored them to come back. So, in reality this RfC isn't invalid in anyway, because everyone I personally contacted had already commented on this page. An RfC is for new commments (Anma and Neh just chose to leave their reaffirmations on the RfC section). If you really do believe I was being intentionally slick and trying to stack votes in my favor then please start a thread about it as AN/I or somewhere else that's relevant. Otherwise, stop the assuming and accusations of misdeads, because it's annoying and childish, and we're all grown-ups (or at least mature people) here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like malicious intent to me (I still suspect off-site canvassing). It's quite odd how this discussion is going. From my experience, it's not normal. Joe Chill (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Joe, considering you called Michael here[16] specifically begging him to help stop the merge, you are the last one to have any right to claim anyone made inappropriate canvassing by letting previous commenters know that new content had been added. And the only oddity in this discussion is your excessive negativity and seeming personal beef with everyone except Michael, which is not conducive to any kind of discussion at all. Personally, I'd be glad Bignole is taking the high road so far and not reported you for the continued, unfounded, personal attacks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Asking one editor for help or advice in improving an article is hardly canvassing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it canvassing. I don't have a beef with everyone but him, it's just the bias editors on this page. He can report me all he wants, if he wishes. Do you even realize the shit storm that ANI is? "Oh, he called you a troll, that's alright. Let's defend him". "Oh, he cussed at you. That's alright because he didn't call the person a cuss word" (actual discussions on ANI). If I was blocked, just imagine how hypocritical that would be. Oh yes, apparently a certain member's canvassing is allowed in an ANI discussion (so never mind I guess). Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm done here. WP:NF won't triump. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So is there an AfD or are we "voting" at the RfC above? Or... are we just attacking other editors? What's going on here? Mike Allen 05:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No AFD at this time. And it appears that Joe Chill has left the room. When I suggested to Bignole on his talk page that an AFD might be worth considering, his RFC was called above. You got the notification because you offered an opinion far above that a redirect of the earlier version of the article would have served. You are welcome to vist the subsequent discussions, the ongoing changes to the article, compare the current version to the one that existed when you opined above at 21:39, May 15 and either renew your opinion at the Bignole RFC, or offer a new comment, or opinion, or none of the above. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that this should go to AfD. That will address the canvassing issue at the same time.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose AFD The purpose of AFD is to empower an admin to use the delete function. It should not be used for forum shopping. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I think that there are far more AFD-worthy subjects than this. Give it a while, see what happens.   pablo_hablo. 21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this could be resolved here. Let's see how the article develops further.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it has developed quite well so far. Also I don't feel that this article will be taken to AfD any time soon. Mike Allen 07:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Should this be in the article?

• 411mania gives gave it a Final Score of 10.0 calling it Virtually Perfect http://www.411mania.com/movies/dvd_reviews/138344/Never-Sleep-Again:-The-Elm-Street-Legacy-DVD-Review.htm

There is a massive amount of detailed coverage at that site. Any reason why a notable review site wouldn't be quoted? That is usually the thing to do. Twice my addition has been removed by the same editor. I'm curious what others think. Dream Focus 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A single quote of "this film is great" (not actual quote, but basically what it says) is not contextual and not reception. It looks more like something you'd find on the back of the DVD box. Given that we have 3 reviews already that are positive, flooding a section with quick one-line praises brings into question that neutrality of the section. WP:MOSFILMS#Critical reception even addresses the problem of staying NPOV with reviews. I'm not saying Mania isn't a good source to use, just that what it's attempting to be used for is not beneficial to the page when it creates a new set of problems.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I do see Bignol's point here. One-liners are not condsive to expanding the reader's understanding of the topic... much as why I find no flaw in his removing the one-niner from Elizabeth Weitzman of New York Daily News. However, as Dream Focus used a summary "411mania had extensive coverage and reviews of this", I went and took a look at the review of which he referred. His one-liner can and should be expanded, as the 411 Mania review offers information that the other reviews do not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think if we do not have negative reviews available (or easily findable) than the ones we have need to be reworked to be less about praising the film with numbers (e.g., gave the film 9 out of 10), and more about just talking about what they liked and did not liked (i.e., being as neutral as possible).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutralizing is do-able. I am still looking for negative reviews or crticism. Haven't found any such yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, their name is 411mania, lower case M, and no space. I'm trying to get that article restored since there is massive evidence of that site's notability. [17] Dream Focus 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Get it userfied. We can make it shine and then move it to incubation for further input. Easier to get something back in mainspace if its improvement has become a community effort. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The interviews

Would it be useful to table the names of the interviewees and include a line on how they're involved in the Elm Street franchise?

For instance:

Interviewee	Involvement with Elm Street
Wes Craven	creator of the film series
Robert Englund	portrayed Freddy Krueger in the first eight films
Heather Langenkamp	portrayed Nancy Thompson

Or something similar to that? It just seems like it would be a useful thing to do, in my opinion, instead of just a long list of names.  Chickenmonkey  08:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks nice... I just incorporated the suggestion using the information from the May 16 version of this article. Anyone may revert or modify if it is felt it does not look good. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Gay themes is controversy?

I don't understand how Freddy's Revenge having "gay themes" is considered controversy? Especially since only one source is being cited. I think the section should be renamed, but I'm not sure to what right now. Mike Allen 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It the the gay themes were denied for years, and then finally admitted, it being denied for so long that can be considered a "controversy" that needs further exploration. Why not reveal up front? Why wait for years to fess up? Maybe the section can be re-titled in some way to indicate that there are "spoilers" or "reveals" of earlier suspicions? And the more can be added as they are sourced? Maybe we'll learn if Freddy's makeup cause a rash or some such. Or that certain cast actually had real nightmares from participation. Or certain cast members kept in touch through other projects? Or whatever other interesting things might be gleaned from the interviews? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I addressed your concerns by renaming the section and setting the text into attributed context per the cite.[18]. Better? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "Undercurrent theme in Freddy's Revenge". I think people know it by "Freddy's Revenge" unless we have to use "Nightmare 2"? Mike Allen 03:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think its swell. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable review?

Is the site oh-the-horror.com a reliable site for critical reviews? Just wondering. Mike Allen 04:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)