Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kicking Zombie Ass for Jesus


 * 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   redirect to Israel Luna. Jujutacular (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Kicking Zombie Ass for Jesus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As far as I can tell, this article is about a movie that does not exist. There was a failed Kickstarter campaign to make a movie, but nothing to suggest that the movie was actually made. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Incubate or otherwise userfy per WP:NFF and TOO SOON. The thing did receive coverage in Fangoria last year. and considering the attention the filmmaker received for his earlier work, and the whackiness of the title, I think we might expect this to get coverage when released. Just no place for it yet.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Struck, See below.  Schmidt,  Michael Q.
 * Incubate or userfy per above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redireect to director. That is an appropriate target. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a crystal ball exercise. No prejudice against recreation after released and a few published reviews have appeared. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, Userfy until it is out and it is a notable film. If it's not notable then a redirect to the director can be used but so far it doesn't pass notbaility guidelines and is a violiation of WP:CRYSTAL Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This film will not be made. The kickstarter failed, as such, it probably will never see the light of day. It fails WP:NFILM.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Taylor, not entirely pertinent... but I have personally been in films that did not raise their full expected funds through kickstarter campaigns. Fact here being that a filmmaker having to work on a tighter budget is not a valid reason to claim a film will never be made... and this fellow specializes in super low-budget fare. I do agree it is premature for mainspace, but deletion policy gives us reasonable options to consider in such cases. In a encyclopedia that admits to being an imperfect work-in-progress, it is not an all or nothing proposition.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... You could be right. What made me wonder was the fact that nearly everything is dated back to summer 2012. It doesn't appear that production will ever start. I suppose incubating would work, but I'm still going to go with "it probably won't be made."  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 12:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... we do have some 2013 coverage about the film and its fund-rasing efforts in genre sources loved by horror film fans but not by Wikipedia. Incubation or userfication would serve just fine for getting this out of mainspace until it is ready.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect title to Israel Luna where I just added information and sourcing. We can alow undeletion or recreation if or when filming begins.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * USER:MichaelQSchmidt. Redirects are cheap. I see no problem with a redirect and userfication until it meets notability standards. I think it has to be a notable film for it to have it's own stand alone though, but that bridge can be crossed later. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Er, it doesn't apparently exist? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is saying it does (yet), but Roscelese... even if not meriting its own article, policy tells us that a non-existant thing can be spoken about somewhere... if done neutrally and properly sourced. THAT's why I wrote it into the target as part of the director's career plans and changed my own vote to a redirect.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 17:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I don't spend much time working on film articles, but isn't it generally the case that a film is supposed to have at least started filming for us to have an article on it? (And the coverage isn't there anyway - I'm just somewhat amused that the article starts "...is a film" when, well, it is not.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Roscelese, written by an inexperienced contributor the article has issues... but please note I am NOT advocating that its issues be fixed and it be kept. When a sourcable film topic is too premature for its own separate article, it serves the project to send those readers seeking information to the one place where it makes sense per policy and guideline to speak about the filmmaker's plans in context to his career. No more. No less.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:28, 2 September 2013 (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.