Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Tunnel (movie)


 * 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 of the debate was keep.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 13:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Death Tunnel (movie)
from talk: "Non-notable independent film. IMDB cautions "Note: Many of the "reviews" for this incredibly poor film seem to be written by people who actually worked on this film or were hired to promote it." Only 2 actors are not redlinked &rArr;    SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  06:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. And of the two non-redlinked actors to this 2005 film, one is a redirect to a poet who died in 1991, and the other is to the author of the original Roger Rabbit novel: so the links may, er, not be accurate. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and spam (see creator's user history). &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A few minor festival appearances, pretty much straight to video, terrible reviews on IMDB, Amazon, etc. Can't find any box office figures whatsoever, so strongly suspect it did next to nothing. It might slowly claw its money back from the long-tail of people who like watching extremely badly plotted B-movies (one review I have managed to find congratulated it for the most ludicrous crowbarring of nudity into a film he'd seen). Just because it's a film, doesn't mean it's notable. The internet has enough of b-movies, we don't need to replicate it. Average Earthman 13:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment IMDb does not make any such caution as the nom claims. There might be a user on IMDb who made such a claim in their user comment or on the message board for the movie, but that does not make it an official statement of IMDb.  Such a user is speculating, or could even be a plant from a rival studio trying to slam the movie (though I would guess the movie is indeed nothing special).  Redlinks are AFAIK not a reason to delete an article, nor are bad reviews, etc.  I'm not sure if the article should stay or go; WP needs to define by policy in a much clearer way which movies should have articles and which shouldn't. Шизомби 14:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed.  This isn't someone's garage movie filmed on a video cam, starring ten people who had never, ever been in anything else.  The cast's credits in other works seem to be in bit parts, but those bit parts are in big time movies and TV shows, and the film was distributed by Sony.  The degree to which the movie sucked or someone's alleging self-promotion on the IMDB review page is irrelevant.  Wikipedia's criteria for non-notability involve no one ever hearing of the subject, not the subject stinking out the joint.  RGTraynor 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising. Brian G. Crawford 16:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article would have been accepted into Wikipedia if it hadn't been from all the associated self-promotional spam articles. Yes, the movie is apparently awful.  Yes, the high point of the star's career was as a minor character in Gigli. But you can order the thing on DVD from Amazon, and it's in IMDB, so it's verifiable.  I suggest keeping this article, but deleting all the other Boothspam. The article will probably need some cleanup for WP:NPOV, though. --John Nagle 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it's availiable at Amazon and has an entry on IMDb, notable movie. bbx 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. No matter the result of the debate, this appears to be a copyvio. If consensus is to keep, someone will probably have to rewrite. &mdash;Seqsea (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Merecat 06:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Opinions and personal reviews are valid but not on an encyclopedia. Death Tunnel is a notable horror film released world wide distributed by Sony Pictures domestic and foreign, Paramount Pictures in Spain, ArtPort in Japan, Imagine Entertainmnet in Australia, Movie Bank in Netherlands. This is also on IMDB. Please keep this in mind. The website has over 4.4 million hits within a year and a half. Bad or Good, Let all the world's people make it's own conclusion without judgemental commentary. This board seems some what bias.
 * Note that previous unsigned Keep came from User:Csaint. See history to verify. --John Nagle 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Why is this even being debated?Brian1979 12:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? This mess started when, within one day, User:Harlie8304 created Tee for Two Publishing, Tee for Two Music Publishing, Saint (Christopher Saint), The Booth Brothers, Saint and Sinners Entertainment, Twintalk Entertainment, Christopher Saint Booth, Christopher Booth, Christopher Saint, Shadowbox, and Death Tunnel (movie). All this activity resulted in complaints from four people and one bot. Most of those articles have now been deleted or made into redirects.  The only ones remaining are Christopher Saint and Death Tunnel (movie), and they're in AfD.  Those might or might not be kept; the votes are mixed.  The process seems to be working; in the end; we'll have one or two decent articles, not the original copies of press kits. --John Nagle 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I understand. I see how the rampant creation of pages such as those is irksome.  However, if rewriiten, the page for Death Tunnel should be kept. Brian1979 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I really don't know how easy or hard it is to get a film on Amazon and Netflix, but somehow they managed to do so. Bige1977 18:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please this film is notable why erase it Yuckfoo 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per John Nagle. --Rob 06:32, 16 April 2006 (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.