Talk:Terror Circus

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Horror

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Film: American

	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.

Redirected[edit]

I found two reviews, but not really much else. I don't know if the AM review could really push this to a confident keep, so I'm redirecting this to the director's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why in the world someone would want to remove information that could potentially be useful to someone. Someone may want to know about this odd, peculiar film for whatever reason, and you want them to be redirected to the director? How does that help anybody? It only hurts and doesn't help. Donmike10 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good thing to argue for something to be kept. It isn't because I specifically want to remove information. I do it because something doesn't pass notability guidelines in one form or another. My bar for notability is rather low when it comes down to it, but I really feel that we should be consistent in how we judge articles. It isn't fair to let one article slide and then crack down on others. I've seen a lot of articles get deleted due to having only a small amount of coverage, despite the subject being incredibly well known otherwise. If we let one article get by, then we should be letting all of these other articles get by as well. Otherwise that's just a pretty big insult to the articles about films, businesses, and whatnot that have been deleted. I don't particularly like it, but I'm going to uphold the current rules and find a way to work with them. Again, if you can find coverage in reliable sources or show that this has been viewed in a film festival five years after its initial airing, that'd be enough to show notability for my purposes. Just be careful what you use, as sites like Letterboxd don't count towards notability because it's a site anyone can sign up and use. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. This film was included in The Encyclopedia of Fantastic Film: Alia Baba to Zombies, and we're actually debating inclusion here. This is more than simply being useful. Cult Horror Films: From Attack of the 50 Foot Woman to Zombies of Mora Tau] also includes it. Donmike10 (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]