Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm the Elephant, U Are the Mouse

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the Elephant, U Are the Mouse

A movie with an 1 liner description, directed by an unnotable director. Fixman^{Praise me} 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason the tag was missing. Added. JamesBurns (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting foundation principals of WP:Five pillars. Film has been WP:Verfied. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let's not have "keep per five pillars" arguments again. It's been thoroughly established that verifiability is not notability, and arguing that it is is counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please' don't disrespect the Five Pilars in an argument again. Verifiability is a CORE principal and notability is a suspect and subjective guideline based upon opinion and regional bias being continually misused. It is currently under consideration to be demoted to a historical essay as Wikipedia returns to the foundation principles. Arguing that foundation principals should be ignored is counterproductive and does not imprive Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering that the user nominating it for demotion is the same editor who used to appear on WP:ANI on a daily basis for disrupting AfDs with bogus "keep per five pillars" arguments, I wouldn't consider this a strong argument against my point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh...? Are you suggesting we should judge the messenger and not the message? I purposely do NOT look up such so as to not have my opinion bent by any preconceptions. I do not know if he ended up at ANI for being incivil, or because he admired the core principlas of Wiki. But is does not seem the two go hand in hand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just how is Five Pillars connected in any shape and form to AfD? Pillars states: "all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy". It says nothing about all articles must be kept. JamesBurns (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you at least admit the article has been WP:Verified to meet the Five Pillars? The connection? Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, WP:ATD:
        No. What I'm saying is that nowhere in the Five Pillars does it expressly say that any verified article must be kept. AfD does however state that an article must be verified AND notable WP:DEL#REASON "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)"
        
        If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here. Some of the more common ones include
        
        {{cleanup}} for poor writing
        
        {{expert-subject}} for articles needing expert attention
        
        {{notenglish}} for articles written in a foreign language
        
        {{npov}} for bias
        
        {{stub}} for a short article
        
        {{verify}} for lack of verifiability
        
        {{merge}} for a small article which could be merged into a larger one.
        
        Per the nom's sucinct "A movie with an 1 liner description, directed by an unnotable director", I do not see how any alternatives were considered or offered. And the Pillars, lest we forget...
        
        Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects. (The article passes)
        
        Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. (The article passes)
        
        Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL. (There is no copyright infringement)
        
        Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 2,737,940 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. (No incivility has been involved)
        
        Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content.(The article is not perfect, however there is no WP:DEADLINE for it to be so as we continue to improve Wiki)
        
        Kinda nice to see the simple set of rules that built Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not when they're pasted into an AfD, it isn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MOVIE#General principles specifically discounts "trivial" coverage in RSes in the form of release notification or plot synopsis. After examination of the references (and a search under both titles) I am unable to find reliable independent sources which provide coverage other than this. No evidence that this film saw wide release or received any form of critical coverage; I can barely even turn up unreliable sources for such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meets all requitements of Wikipedia's foundation principals, like it or not. The GNG, being based upon the failed exclusionist guideline of notability are subjective criteria that do not improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is not "failed". It is currently the main guideline upon which AfDs are judged. WP:MOVIE is likewise a guideline, and you've provided no argument to counter my previous appraisal of the subject's failure to observe even the minimal requirements of WP:MOVIE. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and NF are based upon N. Since its on its way out as a failed guideline... soon to be but an historical essay of what was destroying the growth of Wikipedia and turning it into the laughingstock of mainstream media, all beaucratic creep based upon it will go as well. Thank goodness for the soundness of core policies and the Five Pillars. Its time for Wikipedia to become as notable itself as it once was, and for mainstream media to stop snickering. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The soundtrack for this film was done by the highly notable band Slowdive. There are some references on the Slowdive wikipedia entry that may be useful here. 74.56.205.235 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above is users first edit. JamesBurns (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IP's first edit anyway. Perhaps the editor will log in an make his opinion official. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he does or not, having a soundtrack by a notable band still doesn't imply notability of the film, especially when a) there are no reliable secondary sources for it in the first place and b) said soundtrack was never actually released. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my keep vote above and comment regarding Slowdive doing the soundtrack. I guess I wasn't logged in when I made the comment, oops. Amazinglarry (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability even hinted at. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Possibly notable, but there is no assertation of notability made. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no touch of notability as a film even asserted, much less verifiable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 16 February 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.