Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of the Dead (1976 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 &mdash; Caknuck 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Diary of the Dead (1976 film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This film is non-notable. It only has six votes on the IMDB. It can't be very worthy of an encyclopedia with this status. MalwareSmarts 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, The IMDB page is a reliable source. All movies have some notability. The number of IMDB votes does not control what goes in Wikipedia. Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - while the number of votes a film has received on IMDB is not a reason for deletion, lack of notability is. IMDB is not really that reliable of a source as it relies heavily on user input, and even if it were, all films are not inherently notable and a source establishing the mere existence of the film does not establish the notability of it. Otto4711 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If IMDB is "not really that reliable of a source as it relies heavily on user input," then what is Wikipedia since it relies entirely on "user input"? -75.130.90.56 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)-
 * Wikipedia is absolutely not a reliable source. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Otto4711 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, rationale is not valid. Movies are generally notable if they're listed on IMDb... but this one may be a little low on WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where it says that an IMDB listing establishes notability? It certainly doesn't for actors and it's unclear where a different standard for films is coming from. Otto4711 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, per User:TenPoundHammer. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The movie is also listed on Rotten Tomatoes in addition to IMDb, but that fact raises an interesting point; Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have any critical reviews of this 30 year old movie. That, and a Google search, would seem to indicate a lack of notability through reliable sources for this movie.  Leebo  T / C  20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I wrote this article.  The reason there are so few reviews is because it has not been released since the early days of video.  Given the personnel involved, if it were to be issued on DVD, even quietly, the number of Google hits would skyrocket. I don't think that's an invocation of crystal ball.  All I am saying is that obscurity alone does not make a film not notable.  If it does, then if Baby Geniuses goes out of print for 20 years, its article should be deleted.--Scottandrewhutchins 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is more of a style question, but the article has existed since November 2006 as nothing more than a plot summary. If there isn't anything else to be said (due to lack of reliable sources) do you feel it can grow beyond a stub?  Leebo  T / C  20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's possible, if one could find more information. I'll check next time I'm at the Performing Arts Library.--Scottandrewhutchins 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable Actor, Another Notable Actor, Notable Director (at least as far as the television industry & Broadway are concerned), A positive review that notes the film is filled with recognizable character actors... Other notable actors & actresses as well. -75.130.90.56 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. The notability of the participants does not make the film notable. Otto4711 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, the film is obviously notable enough. It is listed at many popular film websites.  It does not need mass coverage in the media to have an article.  --musicpvm 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no coverage in media that indicates notability. Being listed on large databases of movies that do not have viable critical commentary does not assert notability. i said 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP Because of the lack of crew credits on IMDb, I just went and looked at the on the film, particulrly for the writing credits, which are not on the cover, and saw that the film is based on a novel that is considered notable enought for an article, even as a much smaller one than this: One Across, Two Down. --Scottandrewhutchins 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironically enough, if a book has been made into a movie, it is automatically notable. The movie, however, is not. i said 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if the film is better known? That doesn't make any sense. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says the film is better known? And no, I'm just saying that the notability criteria for books say that if it has been made into a movie, its notable. Not the other way around. i said 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your discovery seems to present a case for merging the Diary of the Dead information to the One Across, Two Down article as an adaptation, since there isn't much other content in the adaptation's article.  Leebo  T / C  12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This may not have been a hit, but it's a mainstream film with prominent contributors, and the article is verifiable. Postlebury 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, notability is not inherited. The fact the James Earl Jones starred in Blood Tide during the 1980s does not make that a notable film. MalwareSmarts 20:36, 18 August 2007 (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.