Potential sources edit

Just dumping a number of sources here, and hoping some of them are reliable when we analyse them afterwards. --Coin945 (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Usable edit

  • [1] Film Threat is a good source and is included on the article.
  • [2] DVD Talk is a good source.

Non-usable edit

  • [3] This one is a review on a site where anyone can review.
  • [4] Non-notable blog
  • [5] Another non-notable blog (NNB from here out)
  • [6] NNB
  • [7] This is just a YouTube link to one of the songs. Fun, but not really usable as a source.
  • [8] NNB
  • [9] NNB
  • [10] Not really a RS, and looks to be a mirror of a past version of this page.
  • [11] Not really usable to show notability and besides, we really need a reliable source or at least a mention of someone on the crew verifying this, otherwise it would just be original research. As such, I've removed it.
  • [12] NNB
  • [13]

Maybe usable edit

  • [14] I've heard of Retroist, but I'm not sure if he's a staff member or an average reviewer. It's maybe usable, but I had enough questions about it to where I held off adding it.
  • [15] This one is somewhat dubious, but I've heard of this site and I think this is the one that's done by a staff member.
  • [16] It looks like this was published through a journal put out by the Popular Culture Association of the South. I'n not sure as to how high in regards the journal is, or how much of a trusted authority this guy is. It'd take some research.

Trivial edit

  • [17] This one is actually good, but I'm putting it here because I'm not sure if this is a big enough FF to where this would count as being "screened five years after initial release". I've added it to the page, though.
  • [[18] This is ultimately trivial since it mentions the film in relation to the guy, but it's not in-depth enough to where it'd give notability.
  • [19] The film festival programs or mentions are good, but might be considered trivial by some so I'm putting it here.
  • [20] This is just restating that it aired at the RI FF, which we've already sourced.
  • [21] This would be trivial at best, but the thing with this is that it looks to have been taken from a blurb from another site, which makes its claims somewhat questionable. It's somewhat common for sites to pull from other pages, some of which were edited by random people.
  • [22] This one actually announces it as a winner, so I'll replace the other link with this one. It's not really a big FF, so I don't think that the award here really gives notability. Most awards don't, unless they're by a big, big film festival.

Unsorted edit

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply