Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beasties (1989 film) - Wikipedia

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--JForget 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beasties (1989 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. Movie which was not theatrically released apparently, then made in 200 (!) copies only, and ... well, that's it apparently. Not one of the people listed as collaborators (actors, director, ...) are apparently notable (they certainly don't have a Wikipedia page), and not one other reason why this film could meet WP:NOTE is given. Existence alone is not enough reason to have a Wikipedia article. Fram 14:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it's verifiable, has external references Elmao 15:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But is it notable? MarkBul 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's the worst film made ever :) Elmao 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Worst film ever? Keep, then. 96T 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only sources are official website and IMDb, fails WP:NOTFILM. Jay32183 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've added two reviews from reliable websites, plus an interview with the director about the film. There were only 200 copies released on video, but this has a following 18 years later suggests this is more notable than the usual straight-to-video movie. Magiclite 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no indication that either of those sources could be considered reliable. One is self-published, and the other appears to accept reviews from anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong. Jay32183 04:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per this reference. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freewebs.com isn't exactly reliable. Jay32183 20:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, a purely commercial link which more indicates the non notability of the movie ("check out our eBay store"!) than the notability. Fram 09:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the sources are good enough, the roguecinema.com review is made even more legitimate by also having an interview with the movie's director, and both the review and the interview were made by the same writer. The critcononline.com site is self-published, but it seems this has been published for the last 25 years, and the writer appears to be knowledgable on the whole genre. Masaruemoto 02:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those things don't make the sources reliable. Jay32183 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a distinct lack of independent, reliable sources here to show compliance with WP:NOTFILM or other notability. Eluchil404 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.