Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam and Evil (film)


 * 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. Dr Bloefeld, I'm going to assume that it was one of your doubles that made that second "keep" !vote. Even with that and considering the length of time this has been open, consensus leans slightly to the "keep" side. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam and Evil (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFILM; no Google News results other than IMDb. The sources currently in the article are not known to be reliable sources, and in particular the reviews are not by nationally known critics. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I started this article when I created Adam and Eve the song by Elvis which is the reason why I see you've nominated this as you were the admin who closed the Elvis song as a redirect. You foolishly redirected to List of Elvis songs rather than to Spinout (album) and failed to merge the information that was given. This does look like a crappy B teen horror movie I'll agree but I think its borderline notable. It does star a few notable actors like Erica Cerra for example and it is covered in the Hollywood Reporter newspaper and on the Horror Channel website, run by CBS, certainly a credible source. Obviously a fairly recent B horror film isn't going to get much coverage in google books anyway... I'd go with Weak keep.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. This article describes the same film as Halloween Camp 2: Scream If You Wanna Die Faster, which is the title in the UK. Depending on the decision, they should both be deleted, or that one turned into a redirect to this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  -- Lear's Fool 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I had a look on Google and found only the Beyond Hollywood one. That made me think weak keep since it looked promising, but then I started looking places like Rotten Tomatoes and found pretty much nothing. I proceeded on to the references in the article and came to the following conclusions:
 * Reference 2 is unverifiable (I can't find anything at where the link takes me)
 * References 3, 6, 7, and 8 look unreliable (they may be reliable, but they certainly don't have that feel, nor have I heard of them as being reliable sources)
 * Reference 4 (the CBS/Horror Channel one) is trivial
 * Reference 5 is a reliable site, but the site doesn't match the referenced content (I'm seeing a big "No reviews yet...", so where on the site is it criticized)
 * To me, this leaves reference 1 as the only really good looking source, since reference 9 I find it very hard to take seriously when it says in part "If the movie was toilet paper I would use it to wipe my ass as I give this piece of shit ½ star". In short, I have to agree with the nominator that the sources are not known to be reliable, leaving me with a final decision to !vote delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I agree with 's analysis of sources, all but the last. As a printed book Ref 9 seems just enough to tip the scale. Colorful language is not a reason to discount the source. I admit bias towards keeping well-documented content on works of art - there is no harm. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I don't discount it because of colorful language in itself...if I did that I would have to discount myself in real life on occasion. While I do find it very hard to take a movie review phrased like that seriously (it seems quite a bit below professionalism), I mostly discount it (and I regret not making this clear in my first comment) because at three sentences, especially with one of them being the one I quoted, I find the source rather trivial in its coverage like reference 4. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The cited sources usually have a fairly informal style, perhaps because it is hard to write serious reviews of B-grade horror movies. Most of the reviews are several paragraphs long. Searches in Wikipedia on "Beyond Hollywood" and "Popcorn Pictures" shows they are quoted quite often. I don't know enough about the genre to know if these sites or the others would be considered authorities about the genre, but cumulatively there has been a lot written about the film by different people, with at least one source in print. My "weak keep" opinion is because I am willing to give it the benefit of doubt given the diversity of sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You already said that at the top. =P Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - it may be an awful B grade movie, but it is notable enough to have an article, and the article is actually relatively good. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:48, 27 April 2011 (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.