Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/666 the Devil's Child


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

666 the Devil&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable low-budget horror film starring Octomom —Мандичка YO 😜 01:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    04:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Alts:
 * aka:
 * working title:
 * genre:


 * Keep While I have absolutely no interest in seeing Nadya Suleman in ANY film, due diligence (sorry ) finds this topic has the coverage to meet WP:NF. IE: Daily Mail Metro UPI TMZ OC Weekly'Fangoria (archive needs to be found) Huffington Post'E! Online Peli (Spanish) Dread Central Horror Movie Maniac Carbonated TV Newsy Shock Till You Drop Hollywood Gossip Ghost Rider Radio Best Horror Movies Hollywood Take and more However, even though enough critical response and analysis is available for expansion (should it be wished), this might perhaps be best if merged and redirected to the Nadya Suleman article.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it amounts to significant coverage to meet notability as a film - those are mainly tabloid coverage ie "Octomom is in a film." Wordpress, horror blogs and IMDB don't count as reliable sources. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree, and sad as it is to say (for I dislike the "star" more than a little) but even in ignoring poorer sources, we still have enough coverage in non-blog, non-wordpress and thus suitable WP:RSs such as Daily Mail, Metro, UPI, TMZ, OC Weekly, Fangoria, Huffington Post, E! Online, and Dread Central to meet WP:NF. And while some Wikipedians tend to react negatively to other countries using a tabloid newspaper format, according to WP:RSN even brief coverage in otherwise reliable sources meets the definition of WP:SIGCOV as long as such is not obviously trivial.  WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a policy nor guideline mandate. And please... no where in the article is IMDB used as a source. It was offered above only to indicate that the quite acceptable Fangoria did in 2012 cover the film. Unfortunately, finding online archives of past Fangoria issues is difficult... but hard-copies exist.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. (1) Film that completed filming phase. (2) Not one but two releases. (3) Nice secondary source coverage of topic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, Schmidt demonstrated the notability of this film, passes GNG. Cavarrone  18:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.