Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashed

Add links
Source: 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 Delete.

talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Slashed

Slashed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log
)

There's a lot of what looks like hoax information in this, it also doesn't meet verifiability standards and Google didn't reveal much about it to confirm what this article says, and is of questionable notability. Masked Hoody (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on sources Wub has found, this is not a hoax. However, it also is not released yet so delete based on crystal-balling. Edward321 (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in IMDB. Definite hoax. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the links from the article say nothing about it, the link "official website" from the info box just goes to the Ash website. Likely hoax but even if not, fails
    WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Film is not a hoax there are scenes i found on youtube with several notable rock stars are in it, also the film is a low budget so you guys shouldnt expect much results however i believe this film is somewhat notable due to the kind of people who stars in it for example, david grohl, Ash and bowling for soup according to the youtube clips. However if the article does indeed fail notablity then i suggust that the subject should be placed in a apporiate place for example the articles of who starred in it and so on.
    talk) 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain (article creator's nick is Jedshepherd, director of film is Jed Shepherd). JuJube (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google search brings up nothing. On youtube or not, you'd think after 5 years there might be something out there to give
    WP:NF. I did find THIS, and THIS... not enough to show notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Merge to Ash article. Changed vote per insights of JohnCD, below. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And a note: The article itself speaks about the film as if it were released in 2004, and there has been no source offered that shows this actually happened. That's the pity, as it might have been as fun a film as promised. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hmmmm... I definitely remember reading about Ash working on a horror film with a number of cameos in. It was at least once before it was due to be released, possibly in Q magazine (but all my copies of that are at home, so I can't look it up there). In fact I was just wondering the other day what became of that film. I will try and look into this further, but for now could I just urge no one to go speedy deleting as a hoax. the wub "?!" 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here's some references:
  • Incidentally this is a pain to search for, given that Ash is the name of the main character in The Evil Dead and Ash (the band) also collaborated on Shaun of the Dead, so I suspect there may be others out there (plus offline sources such as the Q magazines I mentioned). Given the multiple instances of coverage, including outside the music press, it is clear this is not a hoax. Notability is less certain, but again given the coverage, and the notability of people associated with it, I believe it merits a keep. the wub "?!" 15:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice digging... but a few questions/comments: I do not have nor want to pay for a subscription to Hotpress, but the article is dated 2002. The NME article is dated October 7, 2002. The XFM article from April 2004 calls it a "hugely anticipated homemade zombie movie". The second NME article is from November 2002. The third NME article is a blub and a link to the trailer (its existance is not being denied). The Highbeam article is another that requires a subscription, and is dated September 2002. The Dead Link seems to also have a 2002 date. And the last offered link, from Highbeam (subscription required) also is dated from 2002. Your tenacity is laudable. I do not for a moment think this is a hoax. I think it was a project with tremendous potential. But we have a problem in that the project seemed to die after the trailer. Your newest source is 4 years old and only spoke in future tense. Is there not anything more current from websites of any of the principles that indicate the project continued? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - having studied the references one can look at without subscription, I agree it's not a total hoax, but the dates are 2002 and 2004 - it looks as though the boys had some fun starting to make a sort of youtube movie, and if it were finished and had some sort of release it might be notable because of the people in it; but it's not clear that it has come to anything or is ever going to be finished. So I can't think it deserves more than a mention in the Ash article, and I am not inclined to change my !vote. JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm satisfied that this isn't a pure hoax, but this film hasn't been released, and it may even be unfinished (some of the comments certainly lead one to believe that.)
      WP:NFF has a clause about these films, that they have to be notable. I'm not convinced this one is. I also think there may be some self-promotion aspect to this, as several of the YouTube clips (try searching for "slashed ash" - first hit) actually point to the Wikipedia article. I stand by my original vote of not notable, and therefore delete. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment. Went to the author's talkpage to post a few questions about any further progress on the film since 2004. I posted my questions, but noticed that he had not been notified about the article being sent to AfD. Becuase of my questions, he should know now, but has missed out on a few days opportunity to address the concerns of the Nom and the AfD itself. Hopefully he might still have time to show that the film has been finished and has been shown... or that the film is still in production... something... anything to show that it has not simply died aborning. I will now make it a point to notify contributing editors about the article being at AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to all (sorry it's so delayed, been rather busy) - Oh no, it's quite clear to me that the film never got released, and I realised that when looking at the sources. In fact that's what drove me to investigate this, just plain curiosity about what happened to it after I heard about it years ago. And I wanted to address those who argued on the basis that it was a hoax, and prove to myself that I wasn't imagining things! I do feel that the coverage whilst in production means it is worth an article, even though it wasn't released, as it passes the general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" as well as being associated with a number of notable people. But I can see people disagree. It's been clear to me recently that I'm getting more "inclusionist" or the Wikipedia community overall is getting more "deletionist", or probably both, but I guess that's the way the consensus goes. As for the self-promotion aspect, I removed the two external links from the article since they were unhelpful. the wub "?!" 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per my comment above, I'm hoping that the original author or other contributors might be able to show that this has not been abandoned by its production. If not... well.... it'd be a pity. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes the GNG. articles on films that were never released are cool as long as they come from third part---oh god! What is that around the....AIIIIEEEE!!!! Protonk (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slashed&oldid=1138772684"