Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quick and the Undead


 * 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. ''' Just in time for Halloween. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Quick and the Undead

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Zombie movie. Inclusion in IMDb shows that it probably exists but it is no evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:FILM . - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Being poorly written and unsourced is not a reason for deletion. I advise keep and tag for improvement. The film is out there, it is getting some lengthy and in-depth reviews from reliable sources expert to make such reviews, and an encyclopdic article can result per, , , , , , , , , , , , etc. With respects... the nom may not have looked.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Along with the numerous blogs you listed, I see three other sources. AMG info copied on New York Times online, showing yes, it exists: no review, no notability. amazon.com showing that yes, it exists: no evidence of notability. Rottentomatoes showing yes, it exists: no reviews, no notability. Nothing here indicates even approaching notability guidelines at WP:MOVIE. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: With respects, the reviews at horror-movies, digital-retribution, cinefantastique, evildread, mutantreviewers, severedhorror, et al are reviews from persons expert in the genre whose opinions for that genre are respected. I would not expect The Washington Post to have an article or review of a horror film, just as I would not expect EvilDread to write an article on Sarah Palin. As a current example, see such refs used at Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives accepted as WP:RS in the context for which they are offered.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The sourcing mentioned above is barely passable... but there's enough of it that this just barely clears the bar in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have just wikified, and added the sources and reviews.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:53, 21 October 2008 (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.