Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloween 6: The Producer's Cut


 * 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. The copyright issue is a compelling argument. If someone wants access in order to merge some of the content, feel free to contact me.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Halloween 6: The Producer&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Copyright violation, lists storyline, plot, and other aspects of an unofficial never released version of a film, claiming it to be a "Producer's Cut" implying it was created by the Producer of the original film Ejfetters 13:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nom. The page really isn't encyclopedic and is in copyright violation. The main changes can be noted somewhere on the main article but the rest of the information no. Plus it goes into detail about the various bootlegs available and that in itself is illegal, bootlegs. Wikipedia shouldn't list a movie's various bootlegs and how to tell which is which. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. Some of the information is vaulable, but needs to be greatly condensed. The main problem is the copyright issues and the fact that this version of the film simply doesn't need its own article. Cut the bullshit and integrate the rest properly into the main article. --Bacteria 02:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Bacteria, many copyright issues and article is just a storyline of the unofficial movie. Make it real world information, not in-universe and merge it.  It really only deserves a small mention in the article, as none of it is official, but it clearly exists.  We just don't need to list every single difference from the official version.  We could say for real world, when it was discovered, how it spread, critical commentary on the different version, studio/producer's stance on the material, etc.  The cover art needs to go, its unofficial and a copyright vio. in itself, and it's already nominated for deletion itself. Ejfetters 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't really add any images though can we? I was just thinking we could add a screencap from it, but, as it was never "released" by the studio, even a screen cap would be a copyright violation wouldn't it - because I believe the screencap tag says it's been "released". Ejfetters 11:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, because lots of good information and external links that can somehow be salvaged and does concern a relatively notable alternate version of a film. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete or merge as above. Shouldn't be its own article as it stands. Eusebeus 18:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The page is not encyclopedic and shouldn't be its own article. --Evb-wiki 17:49, 14 September 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.