Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hell (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.  MBisanz  talk 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Hell (film)

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

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources can be found. Closing admin please WP:Userfy back to author. Perhaps when this is released it will get coverage. As it is, title makes a search near impossible.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "unless sources can be found? Take 10 seconds and look for yourself! IMDB and others! How could you vote delete? 'KEEP Geĸrίtzl (talk)
 * I was refering to more than it being listed in dozens of databases that I found as I myself expanded and sourced the article in an attempt to save it, prior to you have added more filler. We have absolutely no doubt that the film exists. Listing the entire cast does not show notability. It simply being listed in these databases does not confer notability. It being listed on IMDB and others means it exists... not that it is notable. Can you point to some reviews? That would be a major step in showing notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's goal is stated as follows: "The goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available...". Are we running out of disk space on Wikipiedia??  Geĸrίtzl (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the stated goal of the missing encyclopaedia articles WikiProject not Wikipedia as a whole. Guest9999 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:NFF standards. The first three links for the cast do not link to the actors in the film. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP. Noted actors and pundits (e.g. Christopher Hitchens are in the movie. Meets ALL WP:NFF standards.  (Sorry, didn't sign my post): Geĸrίtzl (talk)
 * With respects, it needs coverage, not simply listings, in sources independent of the subject. I'd like it to stay... I really really would... but it needs reviews and writeups, even if only in conjunction with its cast. The prodeucers need to get some screener copies out for review. That would be a great help.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * keep plain and simple, no serious article that isn't already an article should be deleted. It should be improved and not deleted. --Skyler :^| 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like that to be true... I really would. And I tried my best to improve it. But I looked for the sources required to show notability and they are not currently available. This is why I suggested the article be returned to the author... as it is premature.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Crystal ball prediction/advert about a film with no verifiable references to assert notability to be found. Themfromspace (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects... WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as the film can be verified to have completed filming. WP:ADVERT does not apply, as the article has been cleaned and formatted per film MOS to renove any COI or ADVERT. That leaves WP:NFF... which it fails because notability itself cannot be sourced for this unreleased and unreviewed film. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The crystal ball is what predicts notability. The notability of the subject can't be assertained until after the film is released.  Thats when independant analysis of the film can be done. Themfromspace (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You spelled ascertained wrong.
 * Actually, current guidelines state that the film is allowed to exist on wikipedia only when filming begins: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." I disagree, but this is no the place to question the irrational rule. Please double check current policy before making comments on the deletion of other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And the second paragraph of WP:NFF says that it needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." Schuym1 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy Unfortunately, punitive current guidelines only allow for this option. Keep recent edits have shown that the article is notable, and that it is not a hoax. Ikip (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind clarifying which of the recent edits you believe show the film to be notable? Guest9999 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the film lacks the coverage by reliable, independent sources which would establish its notability. From the information available I don't think that even a basic stub would be sustainable. Guest9999 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy on notability says that "notable" is defined as "worthy of being noted" -- with one of the people in the movie, Christopher Hitchens, being voted among the "The 25 most influential liberals in U.S. media" according to Forbes, ANY movie he is in, even a failed one, is worthy of note. The reasons given so far are like saying an article on a failed Bogart movie is not notable; and that would be wrong. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He isn't an actor, he's an author. You're claiming that just because he is a notable author than any visual media he appears in (even when we do not know the extent of his appearance...it could very well be a cameo) is automatically notable? Well, first notability is not inhereted, and second by that logic if Bill Gates were to graciously appear in some random, fan-made, never-to-see-the-light-of-day film, that that film is automatically notable? I don't think so. The film must stand on its own merits, it cannot suck the notability life from others and believe that it will be able to warrant an article by itself.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not move any relevant, verifiable information into the Christopher Hitchens article? Guest9999 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the movie, as far as I can tell, is not about Christopher Hitchens. Based on the text, he only "appears" (which I assume means it's a cameo), and thus the only thing that would need to be presented on his page would be a single line saying "He made a cameo in Holy Hell" - and even then some might argue that it was a trivial mentioned (which isn't for us to decide here, we're talking about whether this film should have an article, and based on the fact that there is no significant coverage of the film, and that there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources confirming that the film will even get made/released...it does not warrant a separate article).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree!  WP:NF is not a stable policy; users have been modifying it to the point where it is in direct contradiction to Contributing to Wikipedia - "to compile the sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia." That goal trumps any current version of WP:NF. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, notability guidelines trump empty statements like compiling the sum of human knowledge. Not everything belongs here you know. That's what the notability guidelines are for, they weed out what doesn't belong. Themfromspace (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, you are wrong. "To compile the sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia." represents the Prime Directive and not an "empty statement", all other guidelines being subordinate. And unfortuanately, subordinate guidelines are always in flux. Geĸrίtzl (talk)
 * Excuse me, you are wrong. Per the fact that this is an encylopedia and encyclopedias are only for notable topics and there is a long established concensus that guidelines shouldn't be ignored. Schuym1 (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not helping this article get kept because your opinions go against guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That statement has - in my opinion incorrectly - been in Contributing to Wikipedia, for a little over three months. WP:NFF and its provisions have existed for well over a year. Guest9999 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator This article has been edited significantly since the article has been put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? It still doesn't meet WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NFF, only lists IMDb (which itself fails reliable sources. The fact that Forbes talks about Christopher Hitchens is neither here nor there. Per WP:NFF, if the film has yet to be released then the production itself must be notable (no production actually on this film listed, only 2 IMDb sources that apparently do nothing more than give us a plot summary (since those are submitted by users, cannot really be sure it is accurate), and a supposed cast listing. Even if it didn't fail WP:NFF, it still fails WP:NOTE and WP:CRYSTAL (sorry, IMDb suggesting it will be released in 2009 at some point does not mean that it will).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and keep deleted until there's something we can say about it beyond 'it exists'. Per WP:NFF, articles about films yet to be released should generally be avoided (except where the production itself has achieved notability) as there's very little to say about them, and this article seems to be a perfect example of that. Terraxos (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * QUESTION - if the article is deleted then the subject film becomes notable, if I try to restore it I will get a warning: Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted. Is there a way to get around this? Thanks Geĸrίtzl (talk)
 * You get a warning, but I don't think it actually inhibits you from creating the page (not positive, so don't quote me). In these situations, it is sometimes best to create the page in your user space (User:Gekritzl/Sandbox), and then maybe come to the film community page and request input on whether or not there is belief that the information should have an article devoted to it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:17, 27 January 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.