Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Damned (2nd nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) &#32;~HueSatLum 00:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Damned
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing to show that this film is notable, no references, and see WP:CRYSTAL. Mat ty. 007 08:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete; this version is far worse than what was incubated before and borders on G11 speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * alt:
 * alt:
 * alt:


 * Keep Concerns of last AFD are addressed in that the film has finally been released and WP:GNG and WP:NF are soundly met for this film topic. Multiple available sources toward production, filming, and release were ridiculously easy to find. Anyone else ever read WP:NRVE? Topic notability is determined by sources being available, not by their use or not within an article. THAT and any sense or a promotional tone are issues best addressed through regular editing, not deletion.  And nominator... a claim of WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable for a released film. And please, in the future use a little WP:BEFORE, okay? And by the way... the version from the first AFD is still in the incubator, and IT has sources. See: Article Incubator/Battle of the Damned.  I encourage that it and its sources be returned to mainspace forthwith, with the edit histories of the two merged.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 doesn't work [now works, but content posted by any old online user], the rest are reviews from people who are described as "lounging lazily on his couch" (7), a "MrDisgusting" (6), blogs (5, 9, 10), and so on; these do not constitute "significant attention by the world at large" to me. Mat  ty  .  007  08:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Matty.007, thanks for revisiting. We do not expect "the world at large" to notice every film ever made, and DO accept information form genre sources already deemed suitable for offering information for genre films. You might consider investigating proffered sources a bit more deeply before sharing your personal opinion of them. I suggest a study WP:V, WP:NRVE, WP:RS and its sections WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:USEBYOTHERS, and WP:RSOPINION for starters... and you can always consider seeking input on sources over at WP:RSN for any you feel unsuitable.  Those above were offered here to illustrate how easy they were to find.  Yes, not all are the best, but of those offered above, many are actually widely accepted herein as quite suitable for genre film articles. We welcome information from established independent sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking such as IO9 (in this instance itself sourced to Fangoria), Screen Daily, JoBlo, Bloody Disgusting, and (likely) Influx Magazine.  Further, we do not blithely declare automatic non-notability of a topic when sources are available, even if not used in the article. And by the way (you might have known had you checked), "Mr. Disgusting" is the online pseudonym of Brad Miska.   Best,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going into the sources in more depth, I admit that further investigation may have been a better procedure. But, as we know, I didn't; and whilst I agree with most of what you said, I too had a look for sources, and finding mainly blogs and independently published sources, along with a host of Youtube trailers; but I can see now that there is some useable content in there. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think given the sources in the incubated version more than anything has led me to change my mind, and Withdraw this nomination (sorry if I am meant to write this somewhere else). Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  18:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and restore incubated version per User:MichaelQSchmidt. This version of the article is poor but the film is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2013 (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.