Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cursed Videotape


 * 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Cursed Videotape

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing but in-universe information of a non-notable film element. Not something that should have its own page. Anything relevent is bound to be covered on the film pages.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment there are several non-trivial uses of the subject in the book search, such as "Second Takes: Critical Approaches to the Film Sequel‎", "Fear without frontiers: horror cinema across the globe", . And there are google scholar hits for it, such as "From Scrolls to Prints to Moving Pictures: Iconographic Ghost Imagery from Pre-Modern Japan to The Contemporary Horror Film", "Horrifying adaptations: Ringu, The Ring, and the cultural contexts of copying"; and it definitely has a life of its own on the web, separate from the films/novels. So it does have notability separate from the films/novels, as such it's been independantly spoofed as well. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Either Delete if nothing sourced can be added or move to Ring Trilogy Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Yeah, I'm not seeing coverage for this common fictional element, but agree this could probably be appropriately covered elsewhere per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the article can be sourced, in which case I would support merging and redirecting per WP:PLOT. Claritas § 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The anon IP's results make it clear that as a fictional item and trope of fiction, it is of enough scholarly interest that it passes WP:N. As such, keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Unsourced in-universe trivia; mostly original research. Reyk  YO!  05:11, 1 July 2010 (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.