Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Bud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 despite some sound arguments by Anetode. I wish people would spend more time writing the article and less time talking about whether it should or should not exist. Three of the actors have WP articles, and several reviews have been cited in the discussion here. I'll add those reviews as references. Non-admin closure (even though technically I'm acting outside of policy in closing this, I did take the time to review it carefully). Shalom Hello 06:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killer Bud

Killer Bud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unremarkable straight-to-video movie. Article contains virtually no content and was previously deleted as an uncontested prod. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Based on the reviews found here. Corpx 19:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Did those reviews somehow discuss the film's significance? Do they lend notability to the film? Films that enjoy wide releases often have upward of hundreds of reviews linked on Rotten Tomatoes, this film has five: four perfunctory DVD reviews by entertainment websites and only one "quick rating" from a dead-tree format newspaper. Looking over these reviews (only two are still archived), there is no discussion of the notability of this film aside from the following quote: "there are movies that have no redeemable qualities and no business being made; Killer Bud belongs to this last category of movies." So, again, huh? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there are a lot more reviews to be found on a google search. If all these independent sources went to the trouble of reviewing the movie, I think it shows notability. As long as these mentions are not trivial mentions, I think it does give notability Corpx 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's kind of the problem - all mentions are hopelessly trivial. If you plug in "film title" review into Google and come back with a list of entertainment databases which are only meant to create exhaustive catalogs of all DVD releases and have absolutely no relevant, novel information on the movie, you can safely say that no non-trivial coverage exists. There's also the logic that four actual reviews from internet-only publications do not create notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A mention like this guide is not trivial - it is about the film and the stars and what they were in before. Trivial is a listing or a phone book. The only question is are they WP:RS or just blogs in disguise? I judge reliable.Obina 20:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Aside from the fact that even this mention deprecates any purported importance of the film (see quote in above exchange), the Apollo Guide has an alexa ranking of 344,225. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, apparently the only print review was the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. That's not exactly notability. I don't consider Apollo Guide or whatnot WP:RS, at least not in terms of proving notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable director (ish), notable cast. Film articles are also painfully easy to expand, and I might do it myself tomorrow if I have a spare 5 minutes. —Xezbeth 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Blockbuster carries it.. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So does Amazon.com, and..? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Blockbuster would seem to indicate wide release. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It indicates that this film was indeed released on DVD. This film has never had any sort of theatrical release and there are no available DVD sales/rentals figures to substantiate any claims of notability (the only figure I could find was an Amazon.com sales rank of #46,235 in their DVD sales, this doesn't indicate even a "cult following"). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:39, 30 June 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.