- 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 delete. Singularity 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aussie idiots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unremarkable high school film. скоморохъ 09:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article says it is an "indie, amateur" movie, made by a couple of students. Article links to a promo that is clearly unprofessional. Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:V. Thaurisiltc 09:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A clearly non-notable amateur film. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing any reason to stay. Article simply to plug an upcoming youtubeism - Peripitus (Talk) 10:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The video clearly exists. What else is important? Perhaps needs to be moved to a more gramatically-correct title, though. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it exists does not make it notable though. Tiptoety talk 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But why does notability matter? Can you even define it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I can define it, it is called WP:N. Tiptoety talk 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hardly substantial--it's just empty generalities. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as non-notable and pretty much admitting to it.
Also, I'm going to be bold and state that just because it exists is not a reason to keep it.I think I can speak for eveyone here when I say that the article hasn't established notability. Just because notability is only a guideline doesn't mean you can ignore it.1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. non-notable high school film. --87.113.93.118 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It exists" is not a valid argument because we don't depend on direct observation of the world- that would be original research. Here we're an encyclopedia and this means we use sources. If it doesn't have enough coverage in proper sources there can be no article. Kurt, surely by now you're familiar with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Why would you knowingly vote contrary to policies and the goals of the project? Fork if you want, but you have no chance here of changing such fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should know better than most that "policies" are not prescriptive--they are merely statements of what has happened in the past. We are absolutely NOT bound by precedent. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're effectively bound by the most basic parameters of the project. This includes the notion that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". This is not some little detail that may not always apply- it's a fundamental part of what the project is about. Nobody's likely to change this, just for you. Friday (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite aware that this is an encyclopedia. The mere fact of something's existence makes it a legitimate topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia, since an encyclopedia is there to compile the sum of all human knowledge. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite aware that this is an encyclopedia - Doubtful, since you've botched the meaning of "sum" being used. Hint: it's related to "sum up". --Calton | Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite aware that this is an encyclopedia. The mere fact of something's existence makes it a legitimate topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia, since an encyclopedia is there to compile the sum of all human knowledge. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're effectively bound by the most basic parameters of the project. This includes the notion that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". This is not some little detail that may not always apply- it's a fundamental part of what the project is about. Nobody's likely to change this, just for you. Friday (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should know better than most that "policies" are not prescriptive--they are merely statements of what has happened in the past. We are absolutely NOT bound by precedent. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR nonsense. We're an encyclopedia, not a repository for trivial information (WP:NOT). Biruitorul (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see what the difference is. What's trivial to you is of magnificent importance to someone interested in the subject. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let's not waste time playing such games. WP:N and WP:NOT are widely agreed-upon policies, not some parlour trick. Where are the independent third-party sources? Where is the objective evidence of notability? And, let's be serious: "magnificent importance"? Give me a break. Biruitorul (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if they're policies? When policies get in the way of making the encyclopedia better, they should be ignored. They're only a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True (WP:IAR), but policies are also useful at keeping this sort of junk (you know, like articles about amateur videos) out of the encyclopedia, so that's why we have them. Biruitorul (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But articles about amateur videos are most emphatically not junk... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A vast consensus begs to differ with you. Have you considered starting a YouTubepedia, with articles on every video uploaded to that site? Or, for that matter, why isn't your own biography on Wikipedia? Wouldn't you like to put your philosophy into practice? Biruitorul (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A vast consensus... I believe you're understating things quite a bit. As for trying to enact his "philosophy", he already tried. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A vast consensus begs to differ with you. Have you considered starting a YouTubepedia, with articles on every video uploaded to that site? Or, for that matter, why isn't your own biography on Wikipedia? Wouldn't you like to put your philosophy into practice? Biruitorul (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But articles about amateur videos are most emphatically not junk... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True (WP:IAR), but policies are also useful at keeping this sort of junk (you know, like articles about amateur videos) out of the encyclopedia, so that's why we have them. Biruitorul (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if they're policies? When policies get in the way of making the encyclopedia better, they should be ignored. They're only a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let's not waste time playing such games. WP:N and WP:NOT are widely agreed-upon policies, not some parlour trick. Where are the independent third-party sources? Where is the objective evidence of notability? And, let's be serious: "magnificent importance"? Give me a break. Biruitorul (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Imagine if WP had an article for every Youtube video ever made. No sign of any notability. Camillus (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Wikipedia would be immensely better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it would be immensely useless. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does having more information make an encyclopedia less useful? That idea is absurd on its face. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever heard the notion "too much of a good thing"? Drink a glass of water and it will help you survive. Drink 10 and you'll feel sick. Drink 100 and you'll die. Biruitorul (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That analogy totally fails, because it has not been demonstrated that having more information actually is harmful. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That idea is absurd on its face. Waving your arms frantically and shouting: always a winning rhetorical strategy. It's certainly helped helped you gain that massive groundswell of support you've gathered so far in your time on Wikipedia. Maybe they're all biding their time, waiting for the perfect time to strike. But, in any case, for your edification, a little Jorge Luis Borges:
- That analogy totally fails, because it has not been demonstrated that having more information actually is harmful. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ever heard the notion "too much of a good thing"? Drink a glass of water and it will help you survive. Drink 10 and you'll feel sick. Drink 100 and you'll die. Biruitorul (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does having more information make an encyclopedia less useful? That idea is absurd on its face. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it would be immensely useless. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Wikipedia would be immensely better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of Exactitude in Science
- ...In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography.
- Of Exactitude in Science
- Nothing new there. People have used it lots of times, and I'll tell you the same thing I'll tell them: all that really means is that it is impractical to fully achieve the goal I have described. That doesn't mean it's an unworthy goal, or that we shouldn't try to come as close as we can. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable film. See WP:N. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn film. Tiptoety talk 05:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sign of any real-world impact or notice. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTUPID.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2008 (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.