- 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. Fails WP:NFF at this time. No prejudice to future recreation with suitable reliable third-party sourcing. A note to User:DoctorWho42 - canvassing is frowned upon here. Black Kite 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stingray Sam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
lacks multiple independant reliable sources Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite not being listed on IMDb (yet), it has garnered considerable attention from fans of either the band Billy Nayer Show and The American Astronaut as on the sites as Quiet Earth, Twitch, and io9 (most recently). Also, since the film is so new (even though it will be shown at the upcoming 2009 Sundance Film Festival in January) I think it would be more beneficial than burdensome to keep the article around until then.--DrWho42 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence it passes any criterion of WP:MOVIE. Newness is not a reason to keep; assuming the film will become notable is crystalballing. (Note that, according to WP:MOVIE, screening at Sundance would only make the film notable if it wins (and that's not even assured), or if multiple national film critics review it from screenings there.) gnfnrf (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:NFF. Apart from the points made here by Gnfnrf, there has been no official confirmation that it would be screened at 2009 Sundance festival. Attention from fans of producer/director's earlier works is not a reason to create a standalone article. LeaveSleaves talk 23:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although any upcoming film is an uncertain thing, I'm disposed to go along with DrWho's reasoning, "more beneficial than burdensome to keep the article around". --Lockley (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that Lockley received a talkpage message from DoctorWho42 inviting him to this discussion (which DoctorWho42 sent to many people who have edited articles about the director and his other films). While his (and others) opinions are welcome, they may not represent community consensus, taken as they are from a potentially biased cross-section of Wikipedia editors. gnfnrf (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'd like DoctorWho42 and Lockley to WP:NOHARM. LeaveSleaves talk 04:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You know, to my knowledge I've never heard of DoctorWho42, gnfnrf, Cory McAbee, Stingray Sam, or anything relating here. If you want to claim the value of my opinion is tainted merely because my attention was drawn here, that's valid, I guess, but please don't accuse me of collusion or deliberate bias. --Lockley (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't claim that you've done anything but offer your opinion as you see it. The problem is, as an editor of another article relating to the director, you are inherently more interested in, and more likely to want to keep, this article than the average Wikipedia editor, so it is harder to discern consensus once you (and others like you) have joined the discussion. gnfnrf (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion - I'm also one of the editors that DrWho42 notified although I have no clue as to why. I don't recall having anything to do with anything related to this article/film or the director. Take that for what you will. I don't agree with the "more beneficial than burdensome" argument. I'm not an admin but I'm fairly certain that it's not that hard for an admin to resurrect an article if it's deleted and then becomes notable. So really, it doesn't seem that burdensome. The film doesn't appear to have any independent sources that aren't blogs. The director appears to have a knack/talent/whatever for getting more well known actors to play roles in his films which is an implication of notability on his part. Works by notable artists are often accepted to be notable themselves. So, altogether, I'm on the fence. Dismas|(talk) 04:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was because of this edit, I believe. gnfnrf (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy ****!! An edit from over two and a half years ago?! Who wasn't notified then? Dismas|(talk) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was because of this edit, I believe. gnfnrf (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While this could potentially be added to either Cory McCabe's page, or the Billy Nayer Show page, for structural purposes I feel it stands better alone. Regarding WP:NFF I would point out the last sentence in the first paragraph: failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Fans of both Cory McCabe and the Billy Nayer show tend to be rabid in a similarity to, for example, Apple fanatics. Crystal ball or no, even if this move is a flop, there is already and will be further interest in this film simply due to its cult nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agather (talk • contribs) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agather is another canvassed editor. This is not a speedy deletion, this is a deletion discussion, which WP:MOVIE certainly does apply to. gnfnrf (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—obviously fails WP:NFF. The article at present makes no apparent claims of notability at all, and there's no reason to believe this will be anything but a minor cult film, at best. At worst, it will fail to see daylight just like the director's last effort.
By the way, I'm another nearly random editor canvassed by DoctorWho42. Dunno if he got the outcome he wanted from me, though. —johndburger 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep per [1][2][3][4], which seem to squeek pass WP:GNG and thus squeek past WP:NFF. And I'm here as a member of WikiProject Films who has a watch on this page. No one "notified" me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have been looking for information about this movie and this is the only place where I found it. If it's in imdb it should at least be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.247.0 (talk) 02:53, 21 July 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.