Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Drunken Dead Guy

The Drunken Dead Guy

The Drunken Dead Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Prod contested (though not by the creator, but oh well), so here we are. I feel it fails WP:MOVIE; lack of any real sources. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: "The Drunken Dead Guy" is a comedy that has sold worldwide and has quite a few reviews easily found online.

It also marks the first time that Bill Hinzman played a zombie with dialog (going back to 1968 with "Night of the Living Dead").

The links listed below include an internet radio interview where Bill Hinzman called in himself to talk about his role in The Drunken Dead Guy.

• The Drunken Dead Guy at IMDb
• Bloody-Disgusting review
• B-Independent review
• Internet Radio Interview
• Bloody-Disgusting Interview

This is more than enough support to keep the page on Wikipedia.

Veri72x (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources must be reliable and numerous. Interviews and blog posts do not count as primary sources; they're fine as supporting material, but as it is, I don't think they'll do. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• keepThank you Veri72 for your help on this matter.

Something unusual was going on with this page earlier. Links and part of the write-up were being removed which would make it easier to delete. Why are people engaging in dirty tricks to try to delete this page?

Bloody-Disgusting, B-Independent, and Internet Movie Database are as reliable sources of movie info as any out there. Also, anybody who knows Bill Hinzman's voice will recognize him in the audio interview and learn that this legend from "Night of the Living Dead" is part of "The Drunken Dead Guy" movie. The info in the stub certainly shows "The Drunken Dead Guy" to be both entertaining and interesting enough to have a listing on Wikipedia. I don't see why anybody would try to delete it.

Sec4dr (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. I removed all of this material here as it was a copyright infringement of IMDb.com, Inc. You were clearly warned on your talk page here about copypasting copyrighted material to Wikipedia, but yet you blatantly refuse to acknowledge that policy per your comment above. You're pretending that you did not hear that you cannot copypaste copyrighted material to assume bad faith in other users to get your way. That's not going to work with me. You were clearly informed that you cannot copypaste copyrighted material from other websites, and your comments suggest that you are refusing those policies. MuZemike 07:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what??? That wasn't copyrighted material. That was a plot summary that is posted all over the web, not something owned by IMDb. Again, people shouldn't make changes to a listing they are trying to delete as that is a serious conflict of interest. Have a peaceful evening. Sec4dr (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does the plot summary originally come from, then? I ask because merely being widely-distributed, as you claim, doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. And please try to assume better faith next time. We're not out to get you or anything like that. MuZemike 15:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you don't know the source of a description, you can't assume it is copyrighted and just hack up an article. It limits the info people have, and it is a serious conflict of interest to remove text and then try to delete the article for not having enough notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec4dr (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Until you tell me where it comes from, then the only thing I have to go by is that its a copyvio since the material displayed on a website under copyright. I am not trying to engage in any subertuge here like you're suggesting. We have a very strict policy on not accepting copypasta that comes from sites under copyright. My removal of said material is independent from whether this film is notable and hence whether inclusion is justified. Regards, MuZemike 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, trivial coverage at best. The film does not assert its notability through reliable sources, therefore it is not suitable for inclusion. –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep Again, Bloody-Disgusting, B-Independent, and Internet Movie Database are as reliable sources of movie info as any out there. Nothing trivial about them. And a horror-comedy can't have more notability than a talking zombie Bill Hinzman which is supported in all sources. Sec4dr (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Struck above duplicate !vote. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - As per nom. Also some question in my mind about possible sockpuppetry with Sec4dr and Veri72x, and I have asked for an SPI. Frmatt (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: "DELETE" is quite meaningless to say when there are no grounds for it. "The Drunken Dead Guy" has notability and reliable sourcess. Sec4dr (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The following has been transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Drunken Dead Guy.

• keep This page — Youngbriand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC).

• Assuming the topic is notable, keep, but remove all copyvio material. If you don't have a disclaimer or a license in hand, it is illegal to use content you just found somewhere on the web. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC) IANAL, TINLA, HTH, HAND

• Weak Delete According to WP:MOVIE, valid references do not include "Trivial coverage, such as [...] "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database." It appears to me that the majority of the references fall within this category (or are a blog), with the only exception being the director interview at bloodydisgusting. I'm putting "weak delete" instead of simply "delete" due to the validity of that reference; I'm putting "weal delete" instead of "keep" because I don't think a single interview with the director on an obscure horror site constitutes enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Qinael (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep: This is a great movie.Funny as hell with the best use ever of an egg salad sandwich.......and there are no ugly women naked!!!! — Uncleguss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC).

  Please review WP:ILIKEIT. Thanks, –blurpeace ^(talk) 02:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete – the Bloody-Disgusting source is the only one in the bunch that might be reliable and independent and gives some significant coverage. The others, however, are either not reliable sources or otherwise doesn't provide any other significant coverage needed to meet the general notability guideline. The B-Independent site deals with user-generated content and displays no fact-checking or reputation for accuracy. I'm also not convinced that the interview is enough, either to establish notability. MuZemike 18:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin the accounts User:Sec3dr and User:Veri72x are  Confirmed socks of User:Sec4dr, and all three accounts have been indefinitely blocked. MuZemike 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Qinael's spot-on breakdown. (FWIW, I was the prod nominator, having encountered the article patrolling newpages from the back of the log; I searched at the time for verification and evidence of notability, and found none.) Gonzonoir (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep The only user generated content on B-Independent, outside of the Links Database or the Message Board system, is that generated by a single user, Allen Richards, the owner of the site. Since that person is me, any reference to the contrary is an out and out lie, and to defame the validity of the site - currently one of the only sites dedicated to exploring modern underground and DIY cinema with any depth, and certainly the longest running - is to do so with no knowledge of the site whatsoever. All fact checking is done my me personally, and feel free to contact any director of any of the 600+ films reviewed to search for inaccuracies - I stand by my reputation. I don't know what your tiff is with the director, nor do I care, but please don't defame the nature of what I've spent 10 years building. As for THE DRUNKEN DEAD GUY, I'll also stand by my assessment that it's a worthwhile example of no-budget videomaking exploring absurdest and satirical ideas of society, and is worth viewing for anyone interested in this type of avant garde cinema, an of traditional B-movie and Underground sensibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaric (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC) — Almaric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Thanks for that clarification, Almaric. Do you happen to be the same user as posted earlier under Sec4dr? I'm asking because I notice you've only done two contributions ever, and this AfD marks the first in three years. So, I'm a little curious how you managed to find it. If you have a vested interest, please let us know ahead of time, as per WP:COI. For the record, I don't think anyone here has a "tiff" with the director - we're simply assessing whether or not this particular film of his is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic entry. Assuming good faith on your posting, and assuming someone else provided the original link to your site (to fulfill WP:OR), I'm still going to have to say "Weak Delete" on the article itself. Considering the movie review opens by stating that the movie was sent by one of the actors themselves with a request for review doesn't help me believe in it's notability. Remember that Wikipedia isn't about how good something is - it's about how notable it is. This could be the best zombie movie in history on all accounts, but it doesn't merit inclusion unless it's notable as verified by reliable sources. - Qinael λαλεω 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No, i'm not sure who Sec4dr is, and no, I don't contribute to wikipedia often, although I'm a nearly daily user. My suggestion, if you're able, is to track my IP address for that one. As for how I found out about this, easy, I received a note from the director stating that former associates who had succeeded in getting his individual entry removed from Wikipedia were also trying to do the same to the entry for this movie. I don't know what's going on, nor do I care, but to criticize the validity of the movie is either as the director says, pettiness, or complete ignorance regarding underground cinema, and I'd like to think that one is more understandable considering the circumstances. As for who sent the movie to me in the first place, if it wasn't Greff, then it must have been Tina Krause, who, as a notable actress in the New York/New Jersey underground scene, was extremely pleased with her work in this at the time. Unfortunately, I can't remember who, her or Greff, actually submitted the film, but I did speak to both of them around the time of review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.20 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • this is ridiculous. According to the "my talk" section, I've been "accused of being a sockpuppet" - something having to do with multiple accounts and spamming. So much for Qinael's good faith... Is this honestly what Wikipedia has been reduced to? My suggestion to the powers that be, check the logged IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaric (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• keep : The sources noted are reliable within the confines of the genre.

It's understandable that some might question the film's notability. However, the appearances of several notable actors/personalities in the production seem to me a plausible argument for retention, as does the remarkably low budget. TVPowers (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm assuming you're referring to "Other evidence of Notability" in WP:FILM, specifically if "the film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Note the subpoint, however: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." Assuming the "Talking zombie" role really is considerably as a "major part of (Bill Hinzman's) career," I don't think there's any way to conclude there's enough information to clutter up the relatively minuscule page on Bill Hinzman. If someone could provide some evidence that this counts as a "major part of his career," I might be swayed to support a merge with the Bill Hinzman page. If not, and unless there are other notable actors that are involved which I've missed, I'm still seeing this as a deletion. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

KEEP: Why is this even an issue? I've heard discussions of this film on NY radio, Sirius radio and all over the Internet. The page needs to stay and be expanded. DO NOT EDIT what you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleguss (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncleguss, first off, nobody owns articles here. Anybody can edit or take any action on them within reason, guidelines, and policy; they don't necessarily have to know what the topic is to edit it. Second, you only say "keep" once and that's it; this is not a vote per se but a discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted. Third, do not post comments on the top of the page; all new posts go on the bottom of the page. Fourth, you need to sign your name after all of your messages with four tildes ~~~~, which generates your username and timestamp like everyone else has. MuZemike 16:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to Qinael regarding other notable actors appearing in the film, one that comes to mind is cult favorite Tina Krause (an extensive list of credits at IMDB). Nationally known TV Horror Host John Zacherle and actor/comedian Rudy Ray Moore also are listed in the cast. I haven't seen the film in question, but I have heard of it from a number of sources, which strongly suggests to me that the production is notable.

The sources cited in its Wikipedia entry are reliable, and certainly seem easily verifiable. Unless this independent SOV film is for some reason being held to the same criterion as a major studio production, I'm left confused as to why deletion would be desirable. Offhand, it seems like an example of grassroots film production worth noting. TVPowers (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

agree that no one owns this page which includes both of us. Considering how many people have purchased this film and know about it, I am curious why this is even in question. Now.... "I'll retire to Bedlam." E. Scrooge 24.56.141.134 (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

KEEP agree that no one owns this page which includes both of us. Considering how many people have purchased this film and know about it, I am curious why this is even in question. Now.... "I'll retire to Bedlam." E. Scrooge 24.56.141.134 (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

KEEP as well. In addition to all the web support this film has, it and the filmmaker John Greff have made appearances at horror conventions. That's how I connected with them in the first place. And he actually introduced me to Lloyd from Troma films, Joe Franklin, and John zacherle. Murrmade (I don't have a tilda on my keyboard)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrmade (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE) Chummers !voting keep, please note that arguments to policy, not sheer numbers, wins an AfD debate. Please also note that canvassed !votes will be ignored by the closing administrator, as will !votes from sockpuppets. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Delete Utterly fails WP:MOVIE and is in no way notable. It may be funny to some, but that's not a criteria for inclusion. None of those sources are verifiably reliable for inclusion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: This film brings Bill Hinzman back to his classic zombie role. It's also a great tribute to the schlock theatre of the early 1970's. Any late night UHF Creature Feature would have played this movie and the fans of such films would have added it to their "loved it" list.B Movie Lover13 (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC) — B Movie Mover13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please see WP:ILIKEIT and do not post on the top but on the bottom of the page. MuZemike 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• While it's possible that some of the users here are not expressing their positions properly; by noting close observations of Wikipedia protocols, I must protest at what seems like unwarranted accusations of bad faith and/or fraudulent behavior.

Basically, it appears to me that this discussion has decended into the realm of clashing opinions as to what constitues notability, and the rejection by some of what normally (in the field of independent horror films) would constitue reliable sources. Their basic verifiablity should not be in question, from what I can glean from the section on what is meant byverifiably. Of course, the above suggests to me that the guidelines on WP:FILM may need revision, allowing for 'special case' status for films that are not intended as mainstream fare. TVPowers (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)