Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomed (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. This was a bad discussion: the !votes that Lecotech, Smooth0707 and Buc originally stated don't hold weight. Jakew raises a valid point, though, and the reference added by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles does not appear to be WP:RS. So it goes. Punkmorten (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Doomed (film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't seem to be a notable film. All of the actors, directors and producers are red links, which is a big red flag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the IMDB listing is pretty anemic LegoTech &middot;( t )&middot;( c ) 04:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable film, only reference is to the the IMDB, film went strait to DVD. Its wikipedia article should be doomed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It is given an anemic rating at IMDB of 3 out of 10 which is a pretty poor showing. This is not a show that is even near The China Syndrome reputation or notability standards at all. Shouldn't merit a specific spot on Wikipedia. Artene50 (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact it's a bad film is not a reason to delete it. Buc (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  08:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the running time is redlinked! Clarityfiend (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of red links it not a reason to delete. Buc (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep personally I think you guys are idiots, excuse my trolling but its true. Wikipedia is supposed to be a LARGE source of knowledge...why would you propose deleting something that isn't offensive, isn't random, verifiable? Completely wrong. There are so many pages that do not belong on wikipedia as far as i'm concerned. Taking away from Wikipedia is not improving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth0707 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's on Internet Movie Database so it's clearly notable. Buc (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just FYI, I believe that the IMDB is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia because anyone can add anything and there is no real fact checking. LegoTech &middot;( t )&middot;( c ) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as I added Reception and References sections. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also on RT . Buc (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. All but two sentences (the first and last) are plot summary, and there's no evidence of significant coverage in multiple third-party sources as required by WP:N. Jakew (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I could find one review, I would think others can find other reviews. What about magazines like Fangoria?  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Deleting this article would be silly...some people need to read this smooth 0707 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (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.