Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly II: The Predator

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 merge to Grizzly (film)#The "Sequel". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly II: The Predator

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

This is an unfinished sequel to that bear horror movie Grizzly. Although most of it was shot it was scrapped for reasons that arent clear. However, a workprint that's nearly finished (all that's missing is a coherent ending - for the most part all thats there is footage that was filmed but never properly edited) later surfaced so now we can see the film. This sounds like something that would get loads of coverage in genre sites, but Im literally unable to find any RS. It wouldnt surprise me if there are some out there though. Beerest 2 talk 15:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has an entire category dedicated to unfinished films (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unfinished_films), so it seems a bit silly to nominate this for deletion. In most cases there is so little info on them that reliable sources are rare. Just a quick search shows there are plenty of pages with info on this film and it has its own IMDb page. Plus, it already has four references on the page. Do you expect mainstream coverage from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter? Because that won't happen on an unfinished film from 25+ years ago. As of right now, Wikipedia provides the best source of info on this rare film. Udar55 (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whats so special about an IMDB page. Plus, there is no bar that something has to reach. It has to reach GNG or not, it doesnt matter if its something that wont attract coverage. Im not notable, but I dont have a page just because Im not the type of person who gets coverage. Beerest 2 talk 02:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Grizzly_(film)#The_.22Sequel.22. Some films can gain notability without ever releasing, but it is relatively rare since we have to have a lot of coverage of its production. We don't have that. I found some brief mentions here and there, but very little of it was in places that we could consider to be usable as a RS. Most of it is just fan speculation, junk hits, and other things we can't use towards notability. Ultimately all I found that really could be used was this book mention. Now the other problem is that of the sources on the article itself, not much of those can be used. One is a forum link, which is absolutely unusable, another is a link that was dead when I clicked it (and archive searches seem to suggest it would be considered an unusable blog-type site), one link that does work but would be considered a blog-type source, and the Cinema Snob. TCS is part of That Guy with the Glasses, but I've never really seen any of TCS stuff used as a reliable source for notability. Ultimately there just isn't enough out there to merit an article at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a merge to the original film is the most reasonable outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tokyogirl79. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 23 January 2014 (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.