Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 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 Speedy Close per nominator request at the bottom of this AFD. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005 film)

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

A mass deletion of The Asylum's movies. I am using this deletion as prescient.

Tim1357 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mass deletion - These films should be taken individually. One cannot say that all films from this company have received the exact same amount of coverage as any other. For example, Snakes on a Train had a review in Variety magazine. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you find an article who's deletion you contest, remove it from the above list (and don't forget to remove the template from the article). Please provide a brief reason why in your edit summary.Tim1357 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mass deletion - I think there are only a few instances in which mass deletions such as this are appropriate. Lumping 43 movies like this together isn't one of them. This doesn't fit any of the scenarios under WP:BUNDLE in which a mass delete is appropriate (articles with identical content, hoax articles by same editor, spam articles by same editor, articles of identical manufactured products). Throwing them into a mass delete only succeeds in making it more cumbersome to make the case that these movies are notable. They should be taken one at a time. Just a very preliminary Google search turns up several sources for Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus ([1] [2] [3] [4]). (For the record, I particularly oppose the deletion of that one.) These are independent, verifiable sources and even if they aren't much, they are a start; but by lumping 43 films into one place, it makes it impossible to make the case for each individually... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass deletion: I participated in the 18-year-old virgin AfD, looked only at that movie, and didn't contemplate this kind of result. I think each movie needs to be addressed individually. Cumbersome perhaps, but the prior AfD didn't suggest that every asylum movie should be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist each individually on their own merits. There are far too many for this one, and there are at least a few in there that should be kept anyway. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as nom. Whoops i Guess I wasn't supposed to do that. I added them all thinking that people would remove the deletions like they do with PRODS. Can an someone with Rollback undo all the tagging of the articles? Or if they cant I can do it. Thanks for not yelling at me ! Tim1357 (talk) 00:21, 21 October 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.