Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slaughter Disc

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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article has no independent sources, and a Google search finds nothing substantive beyond directory entries and blogs. The article on David Quitmeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just deleted as failing the sourcing test, I don't think the sources for this film are any better. It's a near-zero budget movie, and given the intersect of porn and gore you would really expect a massive amount more coverage if it was genuinely of any significance. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking independent sources that assert notability. Aiken ♫ 16:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --John (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Switch to weak keep. The sources are reviews, and therefore show some sort of notability. Aiken ♫ 10:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sticking with above discussion. Article is slightly promotional in flavor.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe does it again. Keep. Good show, man. Now somebody get rid of the promotional flavors? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Joe Chill. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 15:06, 4 November 2009 (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.