Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer's Unholy Desire (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lucifer's Unholy Desire
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non notable unreleased film. In June 2011 this article was taken to afd. At 17:32, 12 June 2011 that afd ended "The result was userfied - needs some coverage before this can be hosted in mainspace." and the article was userfied one minute later. At 17:36, three minutes later, in act showing total comtempt for the afd's consensus the article was moved back by its original (single purpose) creator. No more coverage was found. The film is still (acording to IMDB) unreleased an has not recived any significant coverage since the last afd. The original consensus that this article does not belong in the mainspace should stand and given that if this had stayed userfied it would likely be deleted as stale draft this current mainspace article should be deleted instead of userfying again. (This may under the spirit of the rule be eligible for a G4 speedy deletion). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article continued to be refined in userspace, and not being the same as what was userfied, does not quite qualify as a G4 recreation. Indeed, userfication is done with an expectation that an article might one day return to mainspace after improvements. The author simply returned it prematurely.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not refined in userspace. It was immediately returned unchanged . Exactly the same does qualify for g4. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes... sorry. I see now that IF caught 13 months ago in June of 2011. it would have then qualified as a G4. But no one caught it last year as being returned to article space, and it was subsequently edited and changed (this is exactly the sort of editing one would have expected or hoped for in userspace).  Shame on the author for not understanding just why it was returned to him for continued work.  The version that existed 12 months ago, the version that was at that time G4-able, no longer exists... and as the G4 issue has been rendered moot, it is a bit tough now to stuff the genie back into his bottle. IE: We cannot say "Hey! I didn't G4 it when I should have, so let's G4 a significantly different version a year later."  If the newb author cannot be made to understand that his actions in returning it a year ago was inappropriate, the article is best sent to the incubator for collaborative editing and more eyes watching over it... yours and mine included.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that it is still "substantially identical to the deleted version". duffbeerforme (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You say it hasn't had enough coverage, beside the 10 reference links listed (one of which is an international french site) (3 of which are some of the biggest horror film sites out) plus Horror society has 4 different articles about it, Or Google the film's title and see how much coverage this film has already gotten . . . even a writeup in Catholic Exchange (http://catholicexchange.com/things-to-come-low-budget-christian-horror/) To have that much coverage before it's even released . . . I think that is notable, plus if this film is the return of Camera Chatham after 25 years of being out of the business and has Doug Bradly attached, I think this film is notable, plus so many other users have refined the article . . . yet none of them thought as you do, or is this a personal vendetta against one of the people involved with the film? 76.120.176.21 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Incubate (or return to its author again with careful instruction about his need to heed WP:NFF or check on with Project Film before a return) until newer sources come forward indicating it finally screened somewhere. As one of those who refined the article, it is still too soon. To IP #76.120.176.21... this is no vendetta. Please read WP:NFF to see how we deal with unreleased films. To merit being an exception to that guideline, an unreleased film needs far more persistant and enduring coverage than does this one. The problem here is that there has been no new coverge since June of 2011. It's as if it disappeared. And yes... it was mentioned recently in Catholic Exchange but only so far as to remark that last year's trailer raised some eybrows and to link us to a May 2011 interview of the filmmaker.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, with prejudice. The writer had his chance -- and given the bad-faith gaming of the system has lost any benefit of the doubt. Work on it on your own hard drive and bring it back to WP:DRV when -- or more likely if -- it's actually presentable. --Calton | Talk 22:12, 6 August 2012
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The film does not even have an established release date, and there have been no recent sources since the article was deleted a year ago.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2012 (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.