Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Beach (2015 film)

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 as a hoax or at best, a very non-notable film. Full disclosure, I PRODed the prior incarnation of the article, but I feel that deletion here is a certainty. I also note that it was created by a different account, which gives off the impression that there is likely sockpuppetry at play here as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Beach (2015 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM or is a hoax. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killagators created by same user. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only existence of the film is a YouTube video blocked by Universal Music Group. Even without watching it, you can tell off the bat that the person who created the article wanted to self-promote his film on the site, violating WP:COI Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Imagine a world where we can clarify in A7 that videos uploaded only to YouTube explicitly count as web content, and not as a "short film".

Seriously though, the source really needs to be added to Wikipedia guidelines somewhere as the worst possible example of a reliable source that is physically possible. You can't make this up:

This databse is for extremely obscure slasher films most people have never heard of. It only contains slasher films which barely have any traces of existing; so few, in fact, that they do not even qualify for most movie databases

...And the MSPaint graphics...don't get me started. TimothyJosephWood 16:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There are far worst sources out there. Of Pandas and People as a source for biology, The Passing of the Great Race as a source on history and ethics, Ages in Chaos as a source on the history of Ancient Egypt, The Greek Myths as a source on Greek prehistory, etc. Why single out a database on obscure topics? Dimadick (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that this film even exists. Dimadick (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:N. The author also seems to have a habit of making non-constructive edits and it is thus hard to believe that this ~~edit~~article was made in good faith. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 17:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No film with this title released in 2015 actually exists. The article is a recreation of a previously prodded and deleted article. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - A hoax. Daß Wölf 05:05, 3 January 2017 (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.