Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am Omega

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. The one WP:V source in the article isn't actually about the film but the company that makes these "mockbuster" films; the film isn't mentioned in the article. Google news search results referenced by User:Liquidfinale appear to be all trivial mentions. No WP:V, no article. Pigman☿ 06:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Am Omega

I Am Omega (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. Non-notable Asylum direct to video film made to cash in on I Am Legend. If anything, it should be merged with The Asylum article. CyberGhostface (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Question - while I agree that most of what The Asylum does is clearly non-notable, does the fact that this one has received some minor coverage not warrant its inclusion, no matter how crappy a cash-in it might be? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 01:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The article is still young - but the fact that it's a direct-to-video movie doesn't make it any less of a movie. As CyberGhostface has pointed out on several occasions, other Asylum movies (Like Transmorphers) have their own article. CyberGhostface simply wants the article deleted so others will stop putting it into the I Am Legend article. TheUncleBob (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please assume good faith. Just because I don't want it on the I Am Legend article doesn't necessarily mean its my sole reason for deletion. Its that its a non-notable film that will be forgotten in a month like all the other Asylum films. And btw, Transmorphers is the ONLY other article about an Asylum film at this time.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - remaining passive in all this, but before I go, I should probably mention that the blue links here would disagree with that (though I will say that perhaps a portion of those should be struck off). Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment A quick look shows that the only other Asylum movie I'm slightly familiar with, Snakes on a Train, also has an article. Does Wikipedia have a policy on what determines if a movie is "notable"? TheUncleBob (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia:Notability has a policy on it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, that's a guideline, not a policy (two different concepts, but: 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' As Liquidfinale pointed out above, the movie has had some coverage outside of official advertising and such. A quick Google Search pulls up quite a few more articles [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]] spring out as pretty in-depth articles. TheUncleBob (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quietearth.us's site isn't an indepth article, its more of a blurb saying "So and so is about to be released". I don't know if DreadCentral would count as proof of a film's notability; I'm a member of that site and they review nearly every horror release and a number of them are direct to dvd flicks that no one knows about. I can't speak about horror-movies.ca, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Liquidfinale. It does seem to be covered by independent reviewers, according to its rotten tomatoes entry, although the only review seems to be some Nordic language (Icelandic, it would appear), however a full review is a full review, and that makes it suitable. 04:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Change to delete. Upon further reading, WP:MOVIE says two or more, and this only has one. Otherwise, it satisfies no criteria. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment So if I can find a review for any film than that film would be suitable for inclusion on wikipedia?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Umm... I posted two reviews that I found in just a quick Google search. Add it to the Nordic review mentioned above, and that's three...TheUncleBob (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This movie is still new. Irregardless if it's an average movie that'll end up in Svengoolie show in comparison to the Winter blockbuster movie I am Legend movie. It's relevant information to know what other movies was based on I am Legend book.--Pilot expert (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Are you going to make articles for every b-grade Draula film so people people will know about movies based off Stoker's work? Besides, its only real similarity to the book is the title and the idea of a last man on earth fighting monsters. Its not even an official adaptation, just a quick cash-in on Smith's film.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I conur. Please keep this article. More stuff will be added in the future.--DarkWingEagle 13:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkWingEagle (talk • contribs) — DarkWingEagle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thats not exactly a valid reason to keep the article. How do you know more stuff will be added to the future?--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Google News sources linked to by Liquidfinale, and that Icelandic review on Rotten Tomatoes. It may be a rip-off film, but it's been covered by several outside sources. --Pixelface (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've found out about a lot of cool movies from their Wikipedia entries, and it would be a shame to see those entries deleted. Here's hoping the quality of the entry will be improved in the future. --Tabmok99 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 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.