Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie Hunters: City of the Dead


 * 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. Huge in the horror community is not the same as meeting our inclusion standards through multiple reliable sources and IMDB isn't a reliable source Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Hunters: City of the Dead

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

Contested prod. An article about an "independent television series" with next to no reliable sources, pretty much entirely written by one user. I couldn't find any good sources on this, either, so I'm assuming this article exists to promote the show. --Conti|✉ 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In the unlikely event this is a notable subject for an article, there is no indication of that notability. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello all,


 * Yes, I'm that "one user", and no, the show isn't as big as a "Seinfeld" or something else. But it's huge in the horror community. As for it being an ad, I've never even met these people. I have, however, read countless toy and videogame articles on Wikipedia which are nothing but an advertisement for those games and to promote their sequels, yet somehow they stay. I've added this because I feel it's important, as do the viewers, film judges, magazine reviewers, and convention goers that have been cited in my article, all of us supporting their efforts.


 * And if the only problem now is notability, please consider this: this show stands as the ONLY broadcast ongoing series of the genre. Ever. Therefore, by definition, it's notable because it's truly unique. Not even George Romero has ever attempted a genre TV show.


 * The article had no citations, and I provided them. It wasn't formatted "correctly", so I got help to fix that. And now I'm still fighting for a mention. If a unique, never before attempted, addition to a genre loved by millions isn't "notable" enough for an online encyclopedia with 3 million entries, do what you will. It's just a shame that a fan of Wikipedia has to keep arguing the point. Rich abromowitz (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just in case you haven't already, please see and read Notability and Reliable sources. Maybe the show is unique and has a lot of fans (for an independent production), but neither are criteria to gauge notability. It's only the cold, hard facts that matter, which in this case usually means news items or reviews by reliable sources. The sources currently used in the article are blogs, fanzines and the like, which usually should not be used by Wikipedia articles. --Conti|✉ 10:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely lacking in multiple, independent reliable soures that come anywhere close to demonstrating notability in general let alone enough to have its own article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Just looked around the Wiki again and found several examples of low-budget zombie-genre films where the only reference was the film's own website, and an IMDB link which just about anyone can get if they pay for itRich abromowitz (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC). No notability issues there. Is an IMDB listing all it takes?
 * It is quite possible that those films do not meet our notability guideline, either. I could check if you'd give me the links to those articles. As far as I know, IMDB can be used as a source, but in itself it is not enough to establish notability. --Conti|✉ 12:06, 11 August 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.