Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre the butcher


 * 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. consensus is clear after improvement and relisting  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Andre the butcher

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Besides having a former porn star in the lead role, there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this film. However, if sources can be provided to indicate notability, I will happily change my vote. JoelWhy (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ron Jeremy really is in everything, isn't he? Carrite (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Correct me if i'm mistaken but i remember seeing that IMDB is not a reliable source and the article is full of different IMDB references with one being repeated a number times because citations 2,3,5,6,7 are the same reference link yet they have different line space within the references section also citation No. 8 is a link to Ron Jeremy wikipedia page. Gavbadger (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No longer being used in that manner. Dealt with through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment IMDB certainly is not enough to demonstrate notability. If it's just used for referencing the plot summary...well, it's not great, but I think I can live with that. But, the reality is, if we had better references to show notability, we would likely have better references for the plot summary as well.JoelWhy (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Plot summary to be trimmed and made a less an in-universe retelling of the story.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It's widely reviewed on horror websites, but I'm at a loss to find out which are reliable sources (horror websites all look so horrible, normal standards of professionalism are hard to detect). The Horror.com review is by Staci Layne Wilson, and RottenTomatoes.com says she's a 'MPAA Accredited Entertainment Reporter and Film Reviewer. Memberships: Int'l Press Academy, L.A. Press Club, Horror Writers Association, Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror. Author of "Animal Movies Guide" and "50 Years of Ghost Movies"' which sound good credentials, but not sure about the rest (Horrorview, CHUD, Dread Central, Horror Talk, Horrorwatch, Star Pulse, Bloody Disgusting Horror, Horror Vault Review, Killer Reviews...). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that there are two notable reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes (notable according to RT standards) helps. Makes me at least consider changing my vote from delete to neutral...JoelWhy (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'm the original nominator of this page for deletion, but I now feel that the couple of review we have should be enough to make this at least marginally acceptable as a keep.JoelWhy (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see no Delete recommendations, including the original nominator at this point, so I reckon someone could safely close this... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Solid Keep per verifiability in reliable sources, and commentary and analysis through articles in such as The Ledger, DVD Talk, Film Threat, Dread Central, et al, as well as having festival and theatrical release before its domestic and European DVD release, give enough for notability. While sure, this brand new article had issues with sourcing when nominated, many times issues are best corrected if addressed in such cases through the encouraging of regular editing by others, rather than with deletion for poor work in having been a contribution by an unschooled newcomer. I appreciate that the nominator himself has reversed his original stand. Well done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep, per provided sources and improvements during AfD. Cavarrone (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2012 (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.