Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worm (2007 film)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Worm (2007 film)

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

No notability asserted; may not be verifiable either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. I've dug up the IMDB reference. Stephen Moffatt (not the Doctor Who writer) has mainly parts as an extra and uncredited minor roles. . The whole Doctor Who thing makes finding further references harder. Anyone more skilled than me who can do the search?- Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did a search using title and director. Not a whole lot out there, but does appear a direct-to-video film that was targeted at the Christian marketplace. It appears that if it has any notability at all, it would be to a very narrow niche market.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The title suggests some cult sleazefest but the description makes it sound stupendously dreary. Get this: "The scene is where Adam dies and goes to hell. But where he dies, Hell was not shown on this movie." Boring! (Back in the golden age of crap homiletic movies like Reefer Madness, we'd have seen hell, even if it were constructed out of cardboard boxes and Halloween costumes.) Oh yes, and nobody's bothered to review this video. The kindest thing would be to let the article die. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A film is not notable unless significant independent coverage and/or reviews of the film are published. See Notability (films). LK (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy Weak delete  per my response above to Mgm.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy the editor had 4 edits before he began working on this article. The movie is not a fraud, and does exist, as per imdb. Instead of saying thanks for your contributions, and explaining the 5 pillars of wikipedia, the wikipedia community in this AfD is telling User:Derek Coburn "your contributions are worthless" I found the movie site: http://www.wormthemovie.com/story.htm travb (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It hadn't occurred to me that it might not exist. I presume that it does exist; after all, why bother to create a website for a non-existent DVD? (A website to sell non-existent Swiss pharmaceuticals from a non-existent Canadian address, that I could understand, though of course not condone.) But IMDB is not a reliable source. It's a useful resource: it points to external reviews, many of which are typically in sources of note (NY Times, SF Chronicle etc., even respected websites like Berardinelli's). Number of external reviews here? Zero (0). Where is the significance of this DVD? It was made, it is sold, yes -- and what more? Morenoodles (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't preschool, User:Inclusionist. We don't leave crap articles alive just to pad the self esteem of new editors. They are held to the same standard as everyone else. Trusilver  16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources that stand up to WP:V. Fails to pass WP:FILM. Trusilver  16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources stand up to WP:V. It exists. It has a niche audience. But they do not stand up to WP:N.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:20, 16 January 2009 (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.