Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloweenight


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Halloweenight

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable film; part of a group of articles by an s.p.a. who may work for the Polonia brothers, or may be a good-faith fan. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Made for four grand. Wow.  No wonder nobody's ever heard of it.  If it makes ten million dollars, it'll really be notable, like Easy Rider.  Until then, delete away.  Qworty (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Film takings and profits aren't of themselves a measure of notability or a relevant argument under any Wikipedia notability or deletion policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per, , , and . Joe Chill (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - Although the Fangoria piece referenced in the article appears to be a a regurgitated press release, the Star Gazette article is significant, detailed, reliable and independent. Dread Central also has significant, detailed coverage.  Beyond that I can't find much except a very extensive self-promotion campaign by the film creators but I can't really argue that at least a small handful of sources exist. (Also, is there some unwritten rule that every horror website ever has to employ an absolutely awful red and black page theme?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to "Keep" from "Weak Keep" thanks to additional sources by Joe Chill above that I didn't see in my Google searches. I kneel before his search-fu. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the sources were already in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't check the "External Links" - too used to assuming they're the non-independent sources, especially when there's also a "references" section. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep based on sources mentioned.  D r e a m Focus  03:50, 10 November 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.