Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil Town


 * 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 -- the original article that was tagged for deletion has been substantially cleaned up, and the current article meets WP:RS standards. Furthermore, this is a commercially released film with a well-known cast, most famously Academy Award winner Dean Jagger, and these considerations need to be factored into assessing the subject's notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Evil Town

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

Non-notable film, article has hoax claim of notability for its popularity among fans of "graphic rape related content." No reliable third party sources, although several self-published horror film sites note that is not a "real" film at all, but patched together from unused cutting-room-floor footage from at least three other movies. Not every actor listed on IMDB is notable enough for Wikipedia, nor should every film be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence that the "article has hoax claim of notability for its popularity among fans", it is just unsourced. Film was obviously sold and is still available on VHS and DVD, sure enough to proof that this film is a real film. Here  and here  are the covers for this film, another proof about a real existing film. Even The New York Times Movies page includes this film  and Allmovie . This is not the correct place to discuss if every film listed on IMDB is notable enough for Wikipedia. --Ilion2 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see statements like "the movie has contibuted to a popular grassroots philosophical movement, focused on humor that lightly implies insidious acts, such as rape" as a hoax claim of notability (as well as borderline creepy and likely to make Wikipedia seem disreputable if tolerated). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment has been rendered moot, as those statements to which you refer have since been removed from the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. According to WP:FILMNOT, IMDB listings and plot summaries alone don't establish notability. Unreferenced. No movie reviews on Metacritic, RottenTomatoes. Google shows no relevant results for "Evil Town" 1987 horror review. There are some Google Books results but they all seem to be comprehensive film guides unacceptable under the mentioned notability guideline. — Rankiri (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily, there are sources available other than Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and a diligent search at a library and online found the film in books in a more-than-trivial fashion. It was kind of a switch to look for sources somewhere other than a limited internet. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, the question is not does it exist, the question is does it meet the criteria for inclusion, and it does not. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Visited a real honest-to-gosh library tonight and found it full of books. Thank goodness Wikipedia does not demand that sources be only online. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny thing, I know books are acceptable sources, and (*gasp*) I have books, and this includes Halliwell's Film Guide, and this film isn't in the last three Halliwell film guides, so while it may exist I don't feel it is notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Film has been written up in reliable sources. These have been now added to article. It is now worth sending to cleanup to remove fluff. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In addressing the nominator's concern, the unsourcable false notability have been removed. What now remains is an expanded and sourced article that meets WP:NF by its coverage in reliable sources. Yes, the released film is a patch-together of earlier unreleased films with the addition of fresh footage, but such has been sourced and now meets guidelines for inclusion. The film was edited together in 1984 and director Mardi Rustam liked the new story enough to remake it on his own as the film Evils in the Night (1985), which he released two years before Evil Town. Its a keeper. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these references establish notability., or ? Please reread WP:FILMNOT and don't try to sell this fluff as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not try to sell your WP:IDONTLIKEIT as if it were representative of policy. Instead, please reread WP:V which states that all informations must be verifiable, and please note that simple verification of facts in an article are not themselves required to be in-depth, just provided by accepted reliable sources. Being incivilly dismissive of policy mandated WP:V is never helpful to a discussion. Knowledgable editors will find that Bowker's Complete Video Directory 2002, CITWF and TCM are properly offered PER POLICY to WP:Verify that the film is not a hoax and that the notable cast is led by a notable director.  And knowledgable editors will also see that after having properly met WP:V, Notability is then met by the more-than-trivial writeups in All Movie Guide, The Motion Picture Guide 1988 Annual: The Films of 1987, and write-ups more that 5 years after the film's release in such books as The psychotronic video guide. Thank you for your opinion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FILMNOT specifically states that trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database does not satisfy the general notability guidelines. All your references irrefutably fall under this category. As for WP:V, Darrenhusted already noted earlier that the main issue in this AfD nomination is WP:GNG, not WP:V. — Rankiri (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Darrenhusted is corect that the issue is notability, not verification. But it is you who are pulling out the sources used to WP:Verify and making the fuss that those few used only to WP:V do not meet WP:GNG.  Policy mandates a notable cast and notable director MUST be WP:Verified, and POLICY does not require WP:V to be lengthy.  To continue puling those few out as representative of the whole is misleading. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The issuses of notability per WP:GNG have indeed been properly addressed, despite your opinion to the contrary. The opinions offered by reviewer Cavett Binion of All Movie Guide  and the write-up in The Motion Picture Guide 1988 Annual: The Films of 1987  are not "trivial mentions".  The coverage more than 5 years after the film's release in books such as The psychotronic video guide, Video Movie Guide 1991 and Video Movie Guide 1995 are not "trivial mentions", as they all address the director, the film, and the film being put together as a compilation of earlier works.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, a plot synopsis and a capsule review? Please read WP:FILMNOT already. Trivial mentions in all-inclusive almanacs aren't acceptable under WP:GNG—and for a good reason. Almost every single person or product is listed somewhere. Unless you make a conscious effort to stay invisible, your own information is probably listed in dozens of governmental, commercial or academical registries. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, and being verifiable doesn't automatically make something suitable for inclusion. Sources like "Bowker's Complete Video Directory", "All Movie Guide" or "The Films of 1987" don't provide any significant independent analysis and obviously don't differentiate between notable and non-notable titles. Your unflinching stance, however assertive, is in direct conflict with WP:FILMNOT and isn't not actually based on any official policies or guidelines I know. — Rankiri (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... then the ones you must not be familiar with are WP:Five pillars, WP:V, WP:PRESERVE, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IMPERFECT. My stance is per policy and per guideline, just as you believe yours is. If you had spent a few hours in a library and examined the hardcopy real books that dealt with the subject, rather than based your assumptions on the offerings available online, I'd be less likely to see your unflinching stance, however assertive, as being WP:IDONTLIKEIT backed up by one guideline taken out of context and the ignoring that WP:NF begins with "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Even if you are unable or unwiling to visit a library and hold a hardcopy book about the subject in your hands, are you still unable to grant that notable cast + notable director + verification, might just equal notability through "common sense" or be a guideline allowed "occaional exception"?  No need to answer, as the question is a rhetorical you have already answered. Dissmiss what sources you will... they still exist and wikipedia is improved by inclusion of this article.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop with WP:IDONTLIKEIT already. I have no vested interest in the subject whatsoever. It all comes down to the fact that notability is not inherited and none of the provided references demonstrate the movie's notability. The fact that most of your objections contradict a well-accepted policy and some of your references (e.g. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/evil_town/) are obviously misleading is not persuasive either. — Rankiri (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy? WP:V is a policy. WP:BURDEN is policy. Are you contending that sometime in the last few hours a guideline has been promoted to policy? We both arrived on Wikipedia the same month... January 2008.  I appreciate that you have edited 393 unique articles and made 746 live edits  since arrival, and that I have only edited 2,960 unique articles and made only 11,441 live edits  in that same timeframe. I also grant that although you may not have created any new articles and rescued none, I have only created 13 new articles and only rescued 125.  I applaud your enthusiasm, and even though we may go about it in different ways, we are both here to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of your past contributions are irrelevant to this discussion. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * His point was that we each contribute in our own way and, though we may disagree, we are here to improve Wikipedia. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closer
 * The concern of the nominator's, that "article has hoax claim of notability for its popularity among fans of graphic rape related content", has been addressed by the removal of that assertion from the article. A simple WP:CLEANUP that did not require deletion. AfD is not for cleanup.
 * The concern of the nominator that the article had "No reliable third party sources", has been addressed by addition of reliable third-party sources through simple WP:CLEANUP. AfD is not for cleanup.
 * The concern of the nominator that "several self-published horror film sites note that is not a "real" film at all", is a strawman, as the nom does not source this assertion. It cannot be known shown that these unlisted sites are SPS or not.  And such were not used to source the article anyway.
 * The nom's concerns that the film was "patched together from unused cutting-room-floor footage from at least three other movies." is another strawman, for the patch-up is part of its notability and has been WP:Verfied through sourcing provided by WP:CLEANUP. AfD is not for cleanup.
 * The nom's statement "Not every actor listed on IMDB is notable enough for Wikipedia, nor should every film be" does not belong in this AfD nomination, as this nomination is not about "every actor", nor about "every film".
 * AfD is not for cleanup. AfD is not a vote. AfD too often incorrectly becomes a debate over interpretations of guideline.  I will trust an closing admin to not count votes, and to compare the article that was first prodded by the nominator to the encyclopedic one that resulted through cleanup and improvement while the clock was ticking. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Vast improvement from the original version. Seriously guys, if you put as much effort into finding reasons to delete it, you could improve it to the point of non-deletion. Kudos to all who improved the article. — BQZip01 —  talk 07:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I spent a lot of time looking for convincing references. I wasn't able to find any. Were you? — Rankiri (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the referenced books? I only have abstracts at the local library, but what I have reads as quality critical analysis. Is there something wrong with those books? — BQZip01 —  talk 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Motion Picture Guide 1988 Annual: snippets from Google Books don't show any evidence that the book offers any kind of significant coverage.
 * Bowker's Complete Video Directory 2002: the visible snippet from Google Books clearly shows that the book doesn't any offer significant coverage for the film.
 * AllMovie(database; 220,000 titles) and The Psychotronic Video Guide (covers more than 9,000 movies): both only provide minuscule plot summaries or capsule reviews that can hardly be seen as significant coverage.
 * Video Movie Guide 1995: guide to more than thirteen thousand films (including offbeat and obscure films)...
 * Video Movie Guide 1991: same publisher, same author. This is obviously an older version of the same guide and this is exactly why I placed the validity of MichaelQSchmidt's sources under question.
 * References 1, 2 and 9 don't provide any type of coverage at all.
 * All mentioned references come from all-inclusive directories similar to white or yellow pages. None of the mentioned references seem to discuss the subject in significant detail. All mentioned references are explicitly denounced by the generally accepted film notability guidelines: a page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability and so on. — Rankiri (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lots of sources that tell you very little about the film. Mere mentions of the film do not show notability. No reviews in any mainstream publications. That the effort put in to try and rescue this article has only resulted in finding trivial mentions in film compendiums reinforces the point that this film is not notable. And I think MichaelQSchmidt deserves a trout for his 'note to closer' - there are other opinions being expressed here than those of the nominator, and I am sure the closing admin is quite able to read the discussion for themselves. Quantpole (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The film was in theaters and video and it was reviewed. And the star is Dean Jagger and he was an Oscar-winning actor. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources for the theatre release? Quantpole (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I'm not 100% convinced that these sources are sufficient, but in borderline cases I think we should err on the side of inclusion. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Alefbe (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If the film wasn't notable, it wouldn't be mentioned so many places. It was the last movie an Oscar winning star with a long movie career ever did.   D r e a m Focus  22:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize this is a wasted effort at this point, but... Notability is not inherited, and if the film were in fact notable, some of these places would actually review it in detail. — Rankiri (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (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.