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 (4th 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   no consensus.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:26, 28 December 2012 (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: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This may quite possibly be the most unencyclopedic entry in wikipedia. No notability established... the so-called review on New York Times site is really just a run-of-the-mill listing, and not a real review at all. Even if it were a review, notability requires multiple important reviews. Previous AFDs was closed with "keep" votes, but actual opinions swayed the other way. AfDs are not simple vote counts. At the absolute best they should have been a "no consensus" based upon the limited voting, or, if you look closely a consensual delete...and who would enter this into a search engine? Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't really seem to met WP:NF to me, and further, of the current references, one is broken, and two are only parts of larger articles that reference the length of the title of the movie, which doesn't seem notable in itself. Even then, the final link is simply a plot synopsis, and not a full review or article. Sodaant (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I thought I'd found some great sources, but everything that I'm finding out there tend to mention this as an aside due to its overly long title. I haven't found anything in-depth so far. I did find that it is mentioned in this textbook but I can't see the page to see how it was mentioned or in what context. There is also this NJ.com page, but it's more about the director and a potential film deal with Kevin Smith (that fell through, I guess) than the film itself. I'll keep searching, but there isn't much out there so far.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I did look to see if there was an article such as Night of the Living Dead in popular culture, but no such article seems to exist. I'd recommend a redirect there, if such an article existed, but I don't really have the interest or the knowledge about the film series/movie to really want to create it. I know that there is a Living Dead series, so I'm not sure if it would follow along with NotLD or if the pop culture article would surround the series as a whole, which would probably be better. I could try, but it'd be better if someone more familiar with the movie and series created it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried seeing if there is enough out there to justify an article on the director, as I figured that if he passes notability guidelines then this could redirect to him. I did find a few sources, but I'm unsure if that's really enough. I've made a version in my userspace, but if anyone has anything they can add, feel free to poke around at it. (User:Tokyogirl79/James Riffel) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not enough significant coverage to pass the notability guideline for films. What sources are there don't seem significant enough to show the notability of this film. As an aside, if this article ends up being deleted, does anyone think that this title is DAFT-worthy? There's already a similar title there, so I think it might be. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahaha. Yes, delete it and then WP:DAFT it. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Does it pass WP:NF? I don't think it does.  It was screened at a film festival, but I'm not sure that fesitval is notable... Roodog2k (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Filmmaker:
 * Filmmaker AKA:


 * Filmmaker:


 * Filmmaker:
 * Alternate title per article:
 * & Short title per NYT:


 * Keep Respecting the previous 3 keeps, we have suitable coverage and suitable sourcing for an article on a 20-year-old genre film. Even if seen as only just making the cut, this one meets WP:NFthrough just enough coverage and analysis in suitable genre sources,Hürriyet (Turkish) IBN  Cineman (German) Journal-Constitution (pay-per-view)  Voz de Asturias (Spanish)  and others to remain and serve our readers... though with his subsequent films with equally silly and overlong titles it seems Riffle is bent on flogging more than just his horse. As this is this article's 4th nomination, it almost seems a matter of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. And I had to fix the Find sources template assigned by this AFD, as "(4th nomination)" is not part of this film's title.  Even if not the recipient of the same sort level of studio hyped coverage as is the Harry Potter or Star Wars films, in meeting WP:NF, we have this film having multiple festival screenings and repeated airings more than 5 years after original release, and we have it written of in books in a non-trivial fashion more than 5 years after original release. The article does provide sources where this film IS discussed, even if briefly, in a more-than-trivial fashion. Wedo not expect a topic that received coverage 20 years ago to remain in the headlines.  WP:NF is met, even if just barely. And I will be happy to repeat myself at the 5th nomination in a few months.  Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would save that speech as a textfile somewhere, it's actually quite effective! I thought about withdrawing for a second, before the trance broke. That was seriously very charming! I do not think I have ever heard such a poetic and well-written explanation for a weak-keep! I'm getting you a barnstar. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks in turn.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's sources and reasoning, and because I don't think that removing this verified and sourced information helps the reader, or the encyclopedia. (Compare the recent "keep" result for the man with the world's longest name at Articles for deletion/Wolfe+585, Senior (2nd nomination).) --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember nominating THAT. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 06:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems like a LOL entry at first glance, may seem really silly, but it really is notable enough to stay. This serves the project and its readers well, and is well sourced. Notability is established and there's no reason not to KEEP. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 06:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Side note: The nav box breaks the page. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 06:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails notability as there is no significant coverage beyond trivial inclusion in lists due to the long name. -- Phazakerley  (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems that this has significant coverage in addition to mulitple points of notability - just because this is a cult film/small scale doesn't mean it isn't notable. This seems like a good addition to wikipedia. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Not incredibly significant coverage, but I think the article picks up enough sourcing to merit inclusion.  More content and really reliable sources would be a plus, and I understand the nom's concerns, but I think this one should be kept.   dci  &#124;  TALK   03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the sources are dead or only mention the title as long and do not discuss the film. I removed one user submitted reference. The rest do not meet enough reliable sources for WP:MOVIE. Mkdw talk 10:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per MichaelQSchmidt. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - In each case, the "source" is only giving the movie a nod because of the name. Is having a long ridiculous name all one needs to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article? I certainly hope not. There is absolutely no notability at all here other than "Har-Har, look at the name". --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and if we ever recreate it we can use an abbreviated title. Typing this title to search would be a nightmare, and I'm sure literally nobody wants to do it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also like to point out that almost all the sources are not about the film itself. The vast majority of them merely mention that the film has the longest title in movie history and nothing about the film itself. Mkdw talk 23:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the sources in the article or here contain significant coverage, it's all about the title length. Hekerui (talk) 19:53, 28 December 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.