Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Graveyard of Death


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 09:41, November 25, 2007

The Graveyard of Death

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This film doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria, because I cannot find evidence that it received any significant critical attention or was reviewed in any significant sources. Those sources I was able to find basically just verify the existence of the film; can anyone else find sources that verify its importance? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Fairly obscure pic, but has an entry in IMDB. Lots of other Indie films are detailed in Wikipedia, why not this. scope_creep (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't have an IMDB entry...at least none that I could find. IrishGuy talk 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOTE. As the article was written by Evelcat and the film has a cat named "evel" (not to mention a sequel was made called Evel Cat) this is obviously personal promotion. IrishGuy talk 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable film, no imdb entry, only 37 Ghits for this phrase, and not all of them are for this movie. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep its listed on the british film council website dont they only list films funded by them, i seen more obscure movies than this listed here. 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC) — Kkk777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, the British film council website doesn't only list films funded by them...which I assume you know as your only edit was to come here and vote keep. IrishGuy talk 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's not a personal promotion and the page was clearly not external link spam IrishGuy.EvelCat(talk) 15:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC
 * Reply EvelCat, as you're new here, it might be helpful for you to review the notability criteria.  That's the set of rules we are using to decide whether or not this article should be deleted; we're looking for evidence that this film meets that criteria.  Take a look at those rules so you can tell us which specific part of the criteria the film meets, and offer two or three independent sources (like newspapers, magazines, and significant movie review sites) to verify it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence presented that this meets the guidelines for notablity for films: Non-notable director, non-notable production house, non-notable cast and (more importantly) no non-trivial secondary sources. And I agree with the above, the article is an obvious self-promotional. A1octopus (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that this is a notable film. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:51, 24 November 2007 (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.