Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gingerdead Man vs. Evil Bong


 * 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   no consensus. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Gingerdead Man vs. Evil Bong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:MOVIE. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:NF through coverage in independent sources. Yes, the article as first nominated lacked use of them, but they exist... and through them we have notability. Yes, the article has been WP:NEGLECTED for a while, but so what? It serves the project and its readers to continue improvements Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Full Moon Features or delete. I can't locate any reviews from reliable sources.  The single review added to the article is from a one-man blog.  All the other references are trailers, publicity, and press releases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh ? ? ?  Fangoria, Dread Central. JoBlo, and movieweb.com speak toward the film and are not exactly "one-man blogs".  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IE: Dread Central Missoula Independent
 * No, of course they're not. But all they did was post trailers and press releases.  The Missoula Independent link looks like a review, but that's just one review.  The other one is a self-published blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I avoided any that were only reprints of press releases. Reliable sources are allowed to include or quote press releases, as long as they offer additional vetted information about a film. And even if some speak about the film's trailer, they are speaking about aspects of the film's production, so WP:NF is met.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, NF asks for multiple full-length reviews from nationally known critics. In my opinion, a comment about how the trailer is hilariously awful doesn't really count toward that.  Release dates and such are routine coverage – these sites give this default amount of publicity to every single horror film ever made.  The true test of notability is whether they bother to write a review.  Unfortunately, they frequently don't. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are making an error. WP:NF's WP:NF is where we may look if or when WP:GNG is failed. When we have plenty of independent reliable sources offering more-than-trivial information about the film's production, WP:GNG is met, notability is established, and we do not have to look further.  And that reliable film sources give information about a film's release is what they do... it's a cumulative collection of sourced information that creates a multi-sourced article under WP:V that informs our readers. But heck... I found a quite decent review in a very brief search, and found an apparent cult following of this genre film and its genre characters in genre sources.  I wonder what else might be found with just a little due diligence.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are making an error. WP:NF's WP:NF is where we may look if or when WP:GNG is failed. When we have plenty of independent reliable sources offering more-than-trivial information about the film's production, WP:GNG is met, notability is established, and we do not have to look further.  And that reliable film sources give information about a film's release is what they do... it's a cumulative collection of sourced information that creates a multi-sourced article under WP:V that informs our readers. But heck... I found a quite decent review in a very brief search, and found an apparent cult following of this genre film and its genre characters in genre sources.  I wonder what else might be found with just a little due diligence.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources found by  Schmidt,  appear to be just enough to establish notability.  Eluchil404 (talk) 08:48, 9 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.