Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doll Killer


 * 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. Deor (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Doll Killer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable film. Lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This page has not been created at all. It's unacceptable and inappropriate to leave the pages uncreated and blank like this. Everyone should know that. ~D3323 9:33am, July 30, 2014.


 * Subjects need to be notable. The fact that a page does not exist is not a reason to create it. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm very seriously doubting the claims that the film was created in 1987 as the article originally stated. If you look at the director's IMDb page you'll see that he was born in 1982... and I doubt very seriously that he was directing horror films at the tender age of 5. It very openly states that he's "Jesus Satan". The 1987 date is made even more of a hoax by the fact that the press release stated that it began as an idea created on the website Retro Slashers. Now I don't remember the 80s all that clearly, but I'm fairly certain that the website wasn't around back then. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that blogs aren't exactly RS, but what little I am finding about its 1980s claims shows that very, very few people are actually buying into the idea that the movie was made in the 1980s. I don't hate viral marketing, but I do dislike it when people try to use Wikipedia as a part of that marketing. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can find absolutely no in-depth coverage of the film other than some trivial mentions based on the press release. On a side note for the director and his crew (if they read this), trying to claim that a film is a "lost movie" usually works better when you don't openly link the pseudonym to a director too young to have directed in the 80s and when you don't create a press release that links the movie's origins to a website that the director works with (especially considering that the film's writer also works for the same website). It doesn't seem like anyone is really taking this seriously, but at the same time missing stuff like that is probably why the response is fairly lukewarm from a lot of sites. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I get a little frustrated when viral marketing falls flat like this. In any case, the film exists but existing doesn't mean that the movie automatically merits an article on Wikipedia and given that it's been out since April, it's unlikely that this will pass notability guidelines anytime soon. I wish the director well and hope that future viral marketing is done a little more tightly, but this film just fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ALTS:
 * Director:
 * ALT:
 * MEXICO:
 * Writer:
 * Production:(
 * Distributor:
 * Distributor:


 * Delete. Just goes to show that even otherwise reliable sites can make errors, and seemingly corrected since the Dread Central article was published, retrosploitation.com now tells us that the PLOT takes place in 1987, and NOT that the film was created then. Methinks a claim that it was a re-surfaced "lost" film is being done as a publicity stunt. Interestingly, an article HERE tells us that Dustin Ferguson supposedly made contact with the widow of the original filmmaker, and gained the rights to distribute... and this would mean he did not direct the film. That said, I doubt that this is actually a found film, and no matter when or where it was filmed, it simply does not have the independent sources to meet WP:NF.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep- I think that they were initially trying to do it for a publicity stunt and when it fizzled flat (because nobody believed it and just sort of shrugged their shoulders and moved on), they decided to go with the set in the 80s angle. It's kind of an example as to how viral marketing can really, really work against you if you don't do it just right. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:45, 1 August 2014 (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.