Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funkastophales

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 of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 13:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funkastophales

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

I have refactored part of this discussion to the talk page so that the long comments do not block up the day's AFD page. This is not an assertion that the discussion is of less importance than other comments, merely that they are a bit long. Please continue to place keep/delete recommendations here and use the talk page for longer comments. Stifle 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable movie. I tried prodding it, but apparently someone 67.183.90.139 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) objects to this (see the user's talk page). Therefore, I'm bringing this here. JoshuaZ 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable movie, no IMDb profile [1] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 05:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because Google shows no hits and the content isn't verifiable. (Pity in a way, as the movie sounds a lot more interesting than many movies whose existence is all too verifiable.) -- Hoary 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete...Content isnt on IMDB because it hasn't been released yet. It is a local film that has played in Seattle and Portland made by an independent who is the cousin of crispin glover. Content is easily verifiable. IMDB is not a standard for the existence of cinema. What does notable mean? The filmmakers web page is http://www.zerohorizon.com/zerohorizonoldold.html You have raised an intersting question in any case...Wikipedia hosting content that doesn't exist in another location would simply defeat the purpose of its existence, it would make wikipedia a cache/search engine. Your argument simply makes the statement that Wikipedia does not have content that is unique. This movie is definitely not a main stream movie and their are many films not listed in imdb. You should state what verifiable means? ....added by User:67.183.90.139 (contribs)

Comment The criteria for that are at WP:V. JoshuaZ 07:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well your prodding for deletion does not meet the requirements here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy.....added by User:67.183.90.139 (contribs)

• Do not delete... It doesn't meet the criteria for deletion and it is becoming obvious after reading the talk page that the original deleter has a personal interest in removing the article.JoshuaZ 07:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ...This edit was made by User:Joshuaz (small z), who signed himself or herself "JoshuaZ" and was soon banned

Comment Good eye, Hoary... this was a subtle trick. I guess it is April 1. --Deville (Talk) 14:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, very much non-notable. (Perhaps a pity as per Hoary, but that's how it is.) A [Google search seems to return 2 hits not on Wik or mirrors, and both of those seem to be on the filmmakers page. Particularly bad is what happens when you click on the official release page! --Deville (Talk) 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hoary Computerjoe's talk 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete...That apparently isnt an official release page, where did you get that nonsense? It is just an html page that was titled funkastophales.html. remainder of this comment refactored to talk page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.36.12 (talk • contribs).

Yawn, I already told you I've never been to your forum, the article was prodded because it didnt meet WP:N or WP:V, I suggest you spend time trying to explain to us how it meets WP:V or WP:N rather than engaging in personal attacks and making an impostor account. JoshuaZ 20:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per our policy requiring all articles to be verifiable. Capitalistroadster 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No verifiable assertions of notablity. - Rynne 21:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn film. --Khoikhoi 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable movie, as per nom. David D. (Talk) 05:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable & non-verifiable. MaxSem 11:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn film. Stifle 23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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.