Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodlust (2010 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   delete. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloodlust (2010 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This movie does not pass the Wikipedia's notability threshold for films. The references provided are to IMDb (not reliable and not indicative of notability), the director's own website (ditto) and a broken link to www.tlagay.com. Google has no trace on that website of pages including the words Gabriel Maitreya or Bloodlust. I was unable to find any third-party coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I saw this in the theater, and its on Netflix. It's completely legit. There's this gnarly scene where he rips the guy's face off. I won't say any more. I don't want to ruin it for you. --MoonLichen (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a Netflix link? The Netflix engine returned nothing when I searched. I also see no indication that the movie was released in theaters so perhaps you're confusing with some other film. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'll look for sources but I want to mention that existing does not mean that this film is notable. I'd also like to state that a review by Amos Lassen probably won't be considered a reliable source when you figure that the guy has been shown to have plagiarized parts of his reviews from various sources to the point where Amazon actually deleted his entire account and review history because there were just so many offenses. I certainly wouldn't consider his reviews to be reliable, in any case.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. What ultimately does this film in is that there are no reliable sources to show that this film is notable. It's received zero coverage in independent and reliable sources. Of the sources on the article, none of them are ones that would be considered reliable. We have IMDb, a primary link, and a Lassen review, which wouldn't be considered reliable for the reasons stated above. There's also some COI going on here, as I've found evidence to suggest that the director and the original editor might be the same person. I've left a message about COI on the author's page cautioning him about how this could be seen as self-promotion and a COI. Even despite that, there just isn't any notability here. I'd also like to note that this seems to be part of a walled garden that was formed abour the director.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 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.