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 (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   keep. Notability apparently established... Bizzare title, yay... Tone 19:20, 26 January 2009 (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=== AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability established... the supposed review on New York Times site is really just a bare listing, apparently taken from another site, and not a real review at all. Even if it were a review, notability requires multiple nontrivial reviews. Previous AFD was closed with supposed "keep" vote, which seems to be judged as such in error based upon the votes. At best it should have been a "no consensus" based upon the limited voting, but leaned more toward delete. DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete': Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * !Vote changed to keep: I think that the film festival criteria is the worst criteria ever, but the film passes WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Cunard (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Keep per my comments at the previous AfD; I see no reason to reiterate what I said there when nothing new is being brought to the table here. I'm a little mystified as to why this film is being discussed again and not the sequel, when as I recall the sequel had a far lesser claim to notability. PC78 (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * New York Times Overviews don't show notability. Having a long title does not make it notable. Schuym1 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about the NYT? Did you read my comments in the previous AfD? The film was screened at a film festival more than five years after its initial release, which in itself meets one criteria of WP:NF. PC78 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Double check that page again; those aren't "items that meet these criteria are notable" criteria, but rather "items that meet these criteria are likely to have sources that prove notability" criteria. The sources that prove notability still must be found.  Powers T 22:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it means that they are likely to exist; it doesn't mean that I have to produce them on demand at AfD. As I said in the last discussion, I belive the festival screening(s), together with the fact that this has the longest title of any film and various other bits & bobs, all adds up to a claim of notability. PC78 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are enough mentions to verify the existence of the film. There's a non-reliable source which supports the claim that this is the longest film title. There's a foreign language review on Rotten Tomatoes. There's generally enough sort of borderline stuff to give this the benefit of the doubt. And the All Movie Guide review which has been reprinted by the New York Times just pushes this over the border, especially as it states (and we have to assume it's true as it is published in a reliable source) that the movie has been mentioned on Late Night With David Letterman. Borderline for sure, but enough not to have the article deleted. Where there is a doubt, we tend to keep.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a doubt. The review from All Movie Guide is trivial. One reliable source with significant coverage is not enough. Schuym1 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A non-reliable source can't support any claims. Schuym1 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Really no point in returning this repeatedly to AfD. The arguments there were irrefutable. Its definitely a keeper.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to meet WP:NF. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What fun! I found cites for the length in the Daily Record and TV Guide and added them.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 25 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.