Talk:The Oregonian (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Notability must be asserted by finding news sources and including content from them on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (films) for further details. Stating that there must be sources out there is not the same thing as including them as evidence on a Wikipedia page.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If this continues I will likely be requesting article protection, due to persistent IP-vandalism. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Except that you clearly have absolutely no idea what Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are. These two sites compile REVIEWS from NOTABLE SOURCES. That's what the entire FUNCTION of the sites is. They are not "movie indexes" like IMDb. If a movie has pages on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, THAT MOVIE IS NOTABLE. A simple click on the Metacritic link here will display reviews from Slant Magazine, The New York Times, Village Voice and Time Out New York. METACRITIC ATTESTS TO THIS FILM'S NOTABILITY. And reverting your edits is not "vandalism", just like "non-notable" is not "I haven't heard of it".--76.106.245.93 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

External links are not the same thing as references. And including a site where references might be is not the same thing as using content from a reliable source to support your content.Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

External links are more than enough to demonstrate notability. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes state right on their pages what the New York Times and other sources said about this film, which vouches for its notability. The film has already been proven notable, so your continuing to place notability tags on it is simply asperger syndrome-fueled stubbornness and a steadfast refusal to admit that you were wrong.--76.106.245.93 (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd appreciate you not introducing uncivil language into this debate. Regardless, you might want to add the sources you claim exist instead of spending that time fighting against basic Wikipedia policy--you need references to support your text. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Expansion edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is way too short and needs to be expanded in more detail. The plot is way too short and should be expanded with its name changed from synopsis to plot. Also information on the film's production and reception needs to be expanded as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic