Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dead Hate the Living!

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Hate the Living!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No non-trivial coverage. Director links to a football coach. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have about the same amount of coverage as most indie genre films. Granted, it's not the type of movie that makes the cover of Entertainment Weekly, but there's plenty of reviews, plus coverage in an article called "When Zombies Attack! A History of the Undead In Film" from the Chicago Sun-Times, and a number of references in books on horror movies (Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide, Book of the dead: the complete history of zombie cinema, and The Horror Film: An Introduction). Taken together, there's enough to support an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that when good sources are found in an AfD they should be added, though the suggestion is a bit terse and the combination of the nom "no non-trivial coverage" (in the article, or the nom followed WP:BEFORE and is making the claim that there's no non-trivial coverage anywhere?) with "so fix it" sounds a bit like AfD is being used here as a tool to fix articles? I hope that's not the case.

In looking for sources on genre movies, unfortunately not many genre magazines are indexed or even thoroughly self-indexed, but searching those magazines' own sites sometimes turns up some degree of indexing (e.g. TDHtL! on cover of and article in Rue Morgue #13 [1] and searching sites that sell magazine back issues will sometimes show you whether the movie made the front cover or whether there's an article about it inside. E.g. eBay shows that it's included on the cover of the March 2000 Fangoria with a four page article inside, and mentioned on the cover of Femme Fatales v.8#10, with an article of at least three pages inside. It speaks to notability and would be worth adding if somebody had the articles, but I'm less certain as to whether it's worth adding when one doesn't. Perhaps as "WP:FURTHERREADING"? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for myself and found none of the sources you dug up, just one sentence mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TPH... we need to sharpen your goggle-foo. It was not too difficult to find lengthy reviews at Fatally Yours, Beyond Hollywod, Twilight Mag (German), Horror Online (Polish), Cine Fantastico (Spanish), eFilm Critic, MTV, Seattle Times, and quite a few others apart from all the lessor mentions. I accept that you did look... just perhaps not hard enough. "sofixit" is a nice demand, but that is not what AFD is for. Multiple decent sources exist that show notability through WP:GNG. That's enough for me to politely request you withdraw this nomination. Thank you.... (and yes, I'll try to add them myself if no one else bothers)... Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient non-trivial coverage exists in reliable sources that discusses the film directly in detail, meeting the requirements of WP:N. Adding those sources to the article is a part of "normal editing" as described in WP:BEFORE. An article with sources that exists but are not added to the article is not a good candidate for AfD, rather it is a good candidate for expansion and improvement. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per availability of multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage of the film. I would encourage such coverage implemented in the Wikipedia article to more clearly reflect its qualification as an article. Erik (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly was easy enough to have done, so I did some. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I found it easy to get references for the article, so its certainly notable enough. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 05:23, 11 March 2010 (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.