Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D


 * 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. Keilana | Parlez ici 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

===Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D===


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

The horribly obscenely long title aside, this film doesn't meet notability standards. It mentions a review in the New York Times, but that is the only reliable review I am able to find on Google (where, by the way, it gets less than 400 hits, and you can be sure they're all relevant with that many search terms). In short: fails WP:NOTFILM and WP:RS.

Included in nomination: Sequel to this film, it suffers from the same problems - except the Times didn't review that one. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Independent, reliable sources are available (e.g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0230575/combined). Google indicates this film is significant (or is given significance by lists of superlatives) as having the longest film name. --Oldak Quill 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - IMDB isn't the most reliable of sources, and WP:NOTFILM specifically states that an entry there does not confirm notability. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any claims about notability. You've already mentioned a reliable source that, with IMDb and others, has implications for the Notability guideline and this article: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/332506/Night-of-the-Day-of-the-Dawn-of-the-Son-of-the-Bride-of-the-Return-of-the-Revenge-of-the-Terror-of-th/overview . --Oldak Quill 02:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The one NYTimes source is good enough, and given this film's mega-title I'm sure there's more to be found. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per lack of coverage. One of the above users seems to claim that this had the longest film title, which might make it notable if verified. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * TPH, did you search? This search string: gets only 165 hits on Google, and I'm not finding anything that's really reliable among them. Of those that do look promising, it's a passing mention (if that's even possible with this title) in an article that mainly focuses on a film festival that included the film, and isn't a proper review. WP:N requires multiple reliable sources, just as WP:NOTFILM requires multiple full-length reviews from nationally-known critics. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, this video completly lacks notability. A video produced by a few college students, even if it does have an incredibly long title, is not any where near notable unless it has done something extrodinary, which this has not. -Icewedge (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, the NY Times source is good, but another is required to really assert notability to my mind. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
 *  Strong Keep In this particular instance I'm going to address where this movie meets WP:NOTFILM in specific parts.


 * 1. "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." It meets half of this by being available for purchase at several retailers and video rental outlets and obviously the Times article.
 * 2. "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following" this particular film holds two claims to notability under this guideline... Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release: Yahoo Movies, New York times, and VH1.com... "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." This is also true in 2005, 14 years after release it screened at Microcinefest and The Pioneer Film Series.


 * In addition to those sources directly addressing the notability standard there are sources like The Guardian: Unlikely But True Movie Titles and the DVD review at Mutant Reviewers From Hell (a surprisingly respected genre commentary site) which clearly illustrate the cult status of the film in the popular culture. Beyond those sources there are blog entries and directory listings like those at All Film Guide and IMDB.


 * Lastly, based upon the cult status of this movie the director has been interviewed in sources like this and gained significant coverage like this . Additonally he may be a notable person (adding to the case that this film easily meets the standard due to his involvement) because he authored this  popular book six years after the making of this film. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: When, in ten years, this is a guilty pleasure or ten best worst films or weird films list, then it will be a "cult" film.  At present, this is gimmickry.  It's fine to have something on The Tingler, because it's documenting a widespread and national campaign.  This is just a guy trying to get promotion, a film that doesn't have an audience.  Utgard Loki (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the film IS 16 years old at this point and is consistently shown at art house theaters and colleges, online evidence of which has been provided.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete (see below). No real assertation of notability, and despite Torchwoodwho's lengthy comment above I don't see an awful lot that passes WP:NOTFILM. The Yahoo!, NY Times and VH1 links don't really cut it as "non-trivial articles" (the latter two are just mirrors of AMG). The DVD review falls well short of "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". The Guardian article gives no comment on the film whatsoever, blog and directory listings don't carry much weight, and notability of the director is not inherited by the film. Perhaps the festival screenings, but the festivals themselves don't appear to be particuarly noteworthy. If better sources can be found that demonstate notability then I'll gladly change to a keep, but I suspect we've already scaped the bottom of the barrell in that regard. PC78 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you link to where 2 of the sources are data scrapes? I checked to make sure they didn't match each other and I want to make sure I'm not mistaken.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Both sources clearly have identical text and are credited to "Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide". Original AMG source is here. PC78 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't check the Times link, I thought you mean yahoo and Vh1 were the same. But I still think there's something to be said for the notability of the filmmaker per WP:NOTFILM section 3.1 and the festival interest.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I had a look on google and managed to find a few things. This article in the Daily Record names it as the longest film title, while this article states that the film was shown at the New York City Horror Film Festival. Also found another review via Rotten Tomatoes, and this review for the second film. PC78 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Because of the film's title (verified as the longest film title in the source I provided above), the festival screenings, and the (possible) notability of the director (for whom this would be a significant work), I'm inclined to think that this does just about pass WP:NOTFILM. Note that my change of heart only applies to the first of these films. For the sequel I say delete or perhaps merge, because with the exception of a single review, all of the sources so far provided relate exclusively to the first film. PC78 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP This films a Five star cult film, equal to that of Monty Python. --HungryJacks (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable cult film, if not then just notable for the long title. The Dominator (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on Multiple Nomination
 * I assert that this is not a good case to have a bundled AfD on. I think all of the sequels could be bundled together. There is a good case of notability for the first film so the sequels might be better looked at on their own or maybe even prod'd since there's very little of a case to be about them.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand you - are you saying that these should have been prodded, or not brought in a joint AfD, or something else? There doesn't appear to be an article for the first film, unless the link in the infobox for #2 is wrong. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually part 2 is the first movie, 3 is a sequel. I'm saying that they shouldn't be in the same AfD because 3 and subsequently (if it existed here) 4 would better be served with a prod.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's brilliantly confusing. Ok, thanks for clarifying. :-) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree about the dual nomination; these two films would be better judged on their own merits. The majority of the sources provided, and indeed the comments made in this AfD, seem to relate to the first of these films only. PC78 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (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.