Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 throw into the sarlacc pit. Krimpet (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge

edit
Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A £15 homemade film, the most notable thing about which is that we have to waste time discussing its deletion on AfD, since no WP:CSD covers it (G11, possibly?) Sandstein 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) — (Oh, contested PROD. Sandstein 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, but unfortunately WP:CSD#A7 only applies to "people, groups, companies and websites". This is a film. Mind you, I'm all for expanding the scope of CSD, but... Sandstein 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't split hairs that way. I've made films with my friends too, and they're not notable. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KEEP' the only reason anyone has come up with to delete it is that it's "unnotable". Unnotable is a very broad term, ie. what may be unnotable to some people may be very notable to others. You have very little right to deny other people the right to be "notable." Star Flaws is widely reguarded as the best film to have come out of St Andrews. 'KEEP' Jonnyshearer 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)— Jonnyshearer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'KEEP' so if Star Flaws & Star Flaws 2 become "notable" then can I write about it? in the meantime you way as well 'keep' it, it's not hurting anyone. if anything having it's a benefit. Jonnyshearer 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' Having made many a film myself, I say this is kept because without it these people may fall into a deep depression, start doing drugs and random strangers for cash. Do you really want that? DO YOU?.....I didn't think so. — FCVDave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:55, May 24, 2007 (UTC).

Well, it would appear that your decision to try and delete the Star Flaws article has kicked up quite a fuss. Some would say that this proves it's "notablity" and therefore it's right to an article on Wikipedia. Jonnyshearer 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SNOW (per WP:NOTE, WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BOLLOCKS) - Tiswas(t) 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for self promotion.Doc13mets 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an "amateur film production" with no cited independant reliable sources to attest any degre of notability or wide spread interst. DES (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur, Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for self promotion. However, what is being promoted is not, as suggested, a 'self' but rather an exceptionally low budget film: call it an 'entity'. Regrettably I am not possessed of an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules governing Wikipedia, and from what I see further up this page this entity falls into a black hole somewhat. Nevertheless, my decision to support the 'Keep' side of the argument can be justified thus: this entity was not created with the desire to make a profit, therefore the promotion of such an entity cannot be an abuse of Wikipedia in order to make financial gain. Moreover, it is questionable whether or not the article was created with the express desire to 'promote' (although I'm sure everyone will recognise that inevitably the outcome could be construed as such: this is undoubtedly the case with many articles on bands, products etc) and if it was not designed to promote then it is surely a valid contribution to this site. The value of the contribution can be scrutinised, and I can see that the relevance of the article is largely localised (although not entirely). In conclusion, I would lend my support to the 'Keep' argument, but with the admission that it is perhaps frivolous in some respects. Would, I wonder, the situation be greatly different if someone other that one of those involved in the film had made the article? Would that prove the lack of 'self promotion'? Notability is a rather woolly word. Small things can be notable in their own ways. Just an observation. yours, Lieutenant Crab User: Lieutenant Crab (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Watch out for the socks! Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First time in my life that I feel some empathy for screw-due-process deletionists. Boys, behave! Stammer 22:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Unfortunately, I'm now also regretting that I didn't just hit "delete" as A7 instead of having this very worthwile discussion with the author and his sock-/meatpuppets. Sandstein 05:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - okay, deep breath. This article was literally made up at school one day. It has zero reliable sources to either support, or even assert notability. It had a budget of 15 pounds, featured no notable directors, or actors, and no Google Hits. Even the term "Star Flaws + Ginge" gets only 3 Google hits. It fails every conceivable notability guidelines. However, a number of editors have bafflingly decided to try and keep this article. I will summarize their arguments below:
  1. "Wikipedia should expand notability to keep it" - This argument admits that it does not meet standards; the correct place to argue this is at WP:NOTE, not here - this is not a valid argument for inclusion; it is an argument about policy, which should be argued on policy pages.
  2. "It has 1500 views and a good rating on an internet site. It is becoming popular" - first of all, 1500 views is not very many; literally thousands of Youtube videos fall into this category. Secondly future notability does not become present notability. This is not a valid argument for inclusion; it is contrary to notability guidelines.
  3. "Notability is subject, and some people think this is notable. You should keep this." - This argument ignores the fact that this is the exactly reason we have notability guidelines. It is an invalid argument for retaining this article, because it totally ignores the very principle of why we have notability guidelines.
  4. "These might become notable, so you should keep then in the meantime, since they aren't causing any harm." - This argument admits they are not notable. In addition, it is a classic "no harm" argument - which is invalid - coupled with a "future notability implies current notability". Present notability is not related to possible future notability.
  5. "Trying to delete this article shows that it's notable, since people are discussing it here" - This article is nonsense, on its face. If a thousand people tell you that something is not important, the fact that they are talking about does not mean it's important.
  6. "This article is not promotional in nature, therefore it should be kept" - So what? The crux of the argument is notability, not self-promotion. Even non-promotional articles must meet notability guidelines to be included. This argument is also invalid.
  • There you have it - my views on why it should be deleted, and why all of the arguments for inclusion presented so far are invalid. Remember - Wikipedia is not a vote. --Haemo 01:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Haemo, who seems to have summarized things neatly. As an additional comment, this article was Speedily Deleted twice per the deletion logs under WP:CSD#A7; deletes and creates all occurred same day as the AfD opening, so read into it what you will. -- GJD 12:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of you are using the argument that wikipedia is not based on a vote, and you would be right. However, this does not give you the right to disregard the many people who have expressed their opinions. You cannot just ignore them because they dont know the terminology or perhaps are not capable of writing as fluently and convincingly as you, or perhaps purely because they disagree with what you believe. The spirit of Wiki is surely that everybody and anybody can have an input to it, regardless of their prior knowlege or background. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.180.177 (talk • contribs)
  • I think thats massively unfair that because you want to have it deleted, you can say that it refers to one thing rather than another "Do as i say, not as i do"?...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.180.177 (talk)
  • Comment Assuming that you are not being entirely disingenuous, I'll reiterate. Editors have reminded you that this is not a vote, as you appear to be under the misapprehension that multiple, unsupported keep comments will have any effect on the overall decision, which will be base on consensus, policy and established guidelines. - Tiswas(t) 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they have multiple reliable sources and won multiple notable awards. --Haemo 13:05, 27 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Flaws:_the_Return_of_the_Ginge&oldid=1138790227"