Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Nazi Zombies


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Operation Nazi Zombies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or the WP:NFO additional criteria at WP:NFILM for a stand-alone article. WP:BEFORE revealed only additional info from movie database and streaming sites and reviews that do not meet WP:NFO  // Timothy ::  talk  22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: HorrorNews.net is usually seen as a RS as far as horror movies go (it's not as strong as if it were Bloody Disgusting, but generally OK), but the other links go to blog type sites. That's pretty much the only source I'm seeing so far though. The closest I'm coming other than that so far is a listing here, but it's not in-depth enough to where I'd consider it anything but a trivial source. I'm leaning towards delete but I'll give it a little more searching before calling it. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I honestly didn't expect to find any other sources that would be usable, but I found a review from AICN. I don't particularly like the site but as far as I know it's still seen as reliable. I also found a news article about the film screening. This would be an incredibly weak keep on my end but it's technically enough to pass NFILM at this point in time. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as has reliable sources reviews such as Horror News and Aint it Cool News, more would be helpful but just passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Hi and, thanks for the points you make. I'd ask you to consider this counter point. WP:GNG says ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". WP:N says "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"". Is this movie genuinely worthy of notice? I think the actual reviews in the sites mentioned make it clear that this movie is not notable. Thanks for your input.   // Timothy ::  talk  22:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether a review is positive or negative has no bearing on notability. In fact bad reviews at least prove the independence of the sources, its the existence of the reviews in reliable sources that shows that the film has been worthy of notice, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: As Atlantic306 says, the quality of the film is not relevant to its notability; bad films can be just as notable as good ones. A Wikipedia page is not an endorsement for the subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keepSeems to be an incredibly bad horror movie, made on a shoe string budget, but does have soem reviews, so it would seem to be a weak keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2020 (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.