Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)


 * 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   snow keep. BencherliteTalk 08:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The sequel section on the page for the first film is the exact same text, word for word, of this page. It should be merged with it for now. As more information about the film is available, we may need to restore it but until then, I suggest deletion. Heyitsme22 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - obviously I should declare an interest here, I have been heavily involved in both articles, however, I should stress that I firmly feel the time has now arrived where it is suitable to have a separate article for the sequel, as the sequel has recieved a great deal of standalone news coverage in reliable sources (including The Guardian and Daily Mail) due to the banning of the film in the UK by the BBFC. Whilst I admit that when first creating the sequel article I copied and pasted bits from the first article to get things started, the sequel article now expands on the content in the first films article to an extent that would not be appropriate to include in full on the article about the first film. Interested editors should compare The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence). Regards Coolug (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article surely has enough good information to keep, no? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Heyitsme22 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is highly unusual for the BBFC to refuse to classify a film, and in this case the Board's reason (that it would be wrong to give a classification to a film that might contravene the Obscene Publications Act) gives this film a significance that merits its own entry. Historical notability is a prima facie criterion for Notability in Film. Sordel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep In its current form, there is plenty difference from the original article. I'm usually quick to go with WP:CRYSTAL on unreleased films etc, but that just doesn't apply here. It has more than enough coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep First banned film in the UK for a long while. Clearly notable. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  assemblyman  ─╢ 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The sequel is highly notable in its own right. Pointless, perhaps; a waste of celluloid, probably; but still notable. bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Apart from being part of a controversial and relatively well-known film trilogy, the BBFC's decision to not grade it makes it especially notable. To address the original reason for the deletion, as of 07.06.11 the comment no longer is relavant as the content is distinct. P.Marlow (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep What we need to do is expand this article to ensure its plot - and its cultural impact (RE: BBFC decision etc) are featured. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I'm a rebel. - Drlight11 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Banned films are common, e.g. Grotesque (2009 film). Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.31 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - wrong. Only 4 are banned in the UK at present 129.11.77.198 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - first banned film in the UK for a very long time. Sick yes, notable yes.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable - sequel to a very notable movie and banned in the UK. Dibs on front! 86.41.42.129 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - notable due to UK ban coverage. hope they show it publically, would be nice to see something push the obscene pubs. act back into its outdated box 129.11.77.198 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether or not it's banned is tangential to whether or not we should have an article on the subject. It would be helpful to frame keeps and opposes in terms of wikipedia policy, or the deletion nomination itself. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment 'fraid not, it's the ban which has made it notable as per Notability. 'Significant coverage' - check, BBC radio, the Independent and the Guardian already, 'Reliable' - check, 'Sources' -plenty of 2ndary sources, 'Independent' - check, 'Presumed' - ticks all of the caveats on 'What Wikipedia is not'. That it is only the 11th film banned in Britain in 98 years of the BBFC - and every other film has a page here - also ticks the presumption box. 129.11.77.198 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The fact that it is one of only four films currently banned in the UK makes it notable right there. The reason given in the nomination—that it's the same as a section in a different article—is a silly reason. It will be edited more as time goes on.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notability, I came to the article from a CNN piece on the UK banning. If it is the content in dispute for being too similar to the original film's entry, then the article needs works. It has no reflection the importance of keeping the article. --DizFreak talk Contributions 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of independent coverage of this already.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - I have nominated this article for "Did You Know" so would it be possible for a decision to be made about this article sooner rather than later? There seem to be plenty of comments, if the article is to be deleted could we get on with it and delete it, otherwise can we close this discussion? I should stress that an anonymous IP user did remove the banner from the article, but I have replaced it as I don't think wikipedia policy would have allowed that. Incidentally, over 30 thousand people viewed the article yesterday, I don't know how that deletion banner makes wikipedia look to these users. Coolug (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2011 (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.