Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Hibachi

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human Hibachi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. All references come from self-published blogs and/or are interviews and therefore are not independent. Also, this article received significant contributions from a known sock-puppeteer MikePlant1. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delaware and New Jersey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep did you Google before you listed this erroneously and try and improve the article? There is about 20 independent reviews on this movie (as indicated by Donaldd23 when you added the notability tag over a week ago.) Tons of Google results. Not “self published” but top horror sites and reviewers. ValidatedKing (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator clearly hasn't read the Wikipedia guidelines for Reliable Sources as it pertains to Horror sites. [1], as the so-called "blog" reviews they mentioned are listed as acceptable per Wikipedia's standards. HorrorNews.net is a RS, and it has a review for this film (which has been cited in the article before nomination). Horror Society is also listed as a RS, and it has a review for this film (which, also, has been cited in the article before nomination.). This article pass WP:NFILM based on that and should never have been nominated. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment not to mention the pophorror.com one too which is listed here too. [2]ValidatedKing (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through the comments by the blocked sock ValidatedKing. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough information and credible sources out there to separate this topic. Lord of Fantasy (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:HORROR/S, HorrorNews.net is a RS, as is Horror Society. The article could of course be better laid out and such, but AfD is not meant to be cleanup for articles that already pass notability guidelines. I'm going to give the nom the benefit of the doubt that they weren't aware of horror sourcing - it is pretty much a niche area. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:13, 7 March 2022 (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.