Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parade of Death

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 of the debate was delete. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parade of Death

It was not implied that Parade of Death was a released film and it was stated that it was a screenplay. The listing as Film was erroneously added by another user.

*Keep - AFD is not the place to discuss editing issues. If you believe that the facts are incorrect, then fix them in the article. You are correct about the film part though, as it has no IMDB entry. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Huh? How is an article about a non-notable screenplay encyclopedic? What part of this article do you find verifiable? Did you read the article? Do that, then read WP:V and come back, Zordrac. 165.189.91.148 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Watch the tone and insults thanks. Your nom didn't make any assertions that your reasons for nominating it were in relation to notoriety. Hence I presumed that your only issue was factual accuracy. Please don't insult long-term users with thousands of edits. Ta. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since notability is subjective, how is the notability judged? Would listing the copyright information satisfy the verifiability claim? Emcnutt

  • Let's see here... I would start by trying to establish the company that released the film (online); then checking such reliable sources as rottentomatoes.com or imdb.com or any other the movie review guides, either on paper or online (and if it's not listed in Leonard Maltin's guide and less than 20 years old, I don't go further as it would be there if it were a notable recent film). Now... let's double check a few sources -- rottentomatoes.com (not mentioned); imdb.com (not mentioned); movies.com (not mentioned); Yahoo movies (not mentioned); movies.nytimes.com (not included in over 15,000 movie reviews published in the New York Times since 1981). I don't need to check the Leonard Maltin book -- Delete as an ad for a sequel for a nn motion picture. And, yes, the article explicity mentions it to be a purported film (how many plays have numbered sequels?). B.Wind 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The article mentions quite clearly that it is a screenplay, not a film. I'm not sure why you said it was explicitly mentioned to be a film as the word "film" isn't even found in the article. There would be no listing in film directories as it has never been made into a movie. Emcnutt
      • The last two subheadings in the article indicate otherwise. Either way you look at it (as a nn screenplay that wasn't made, or a nn motion picture, or an ad for a sequel for this nonentity), the argument reinforces the rationale for my original vote, which I shall not change. If the last two sections of the article are flat out wrong in indicating that there were a finished screenplay and movie (again, the giveaway is the announcement of a sequel), then the article should be speedily deleted. B.Wind 23:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Library of Congress / WGA registration numbers have been provided as verifiable sources. --Gkennedy34 03:00, 23 December 2005 (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.