Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bikini Carwash Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bikini Carwash Company

Speedied in good faith - "no unsourced article on a low-budget soft porn comedy film that made absolutely no assertion of notability (CSD A7), and just about every name in the list of cast was redlinked (itself an indication of how important the topic is)" by JzG. Probably should have been debated (shrug) so sending here.--Docg 12:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. A little struggle with this one - it's an old enough film where sources likely exist, but aren't readily available. We have the allmovie link, which is reliable and independent, and the IMDb cast listing, which is reliable and independent, so we have what we need for the stub covered. The film was notable enough in the director's resume to warrant mention in his obituary, which means something, so I see no reason to delete. The speedy, while in good faith, was completely improper, so please do not allow your comments to possibly reflect that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No independent references (IMDB is user editable); no evidence of significance; virtually everybody in it is a nonentity (i.e. redlinked). Generic low budget soft-porn comedy of absolutely no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The cast and crew areas are actually vetted by someone else before they're updated, and they are independent. The amount of redlinks has nothing to do with something's significance, it simply means we have poor coverage in this area. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quite an awful movie, but that's not a valid reason. I am not convinced by the redlink thing. If you take movies by Robert Bresson, for instance, who was using amateurs as actors at the end of his career (see Mouchette or Lancelot du Lac for instance), you will have redlinks everywhere too. And you won't say that Bresson's movies are not notable. IMDB is not user editable, afaik, you can suggest edits but they are screened. And there is a second source, with the allmovie link. Hektor 12:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed no. Lack of independent sources is the reason. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please explain why All movie guide and ImdB are not independent source, plus the obituary in Variety. Hektor 19:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - demonstrated existence does not equal notability: if it did, we'd have articles on this girl, this chap, this lass, etc. We don't, for a good reason. This just doesn't assert notability, so delete until it does and backs that up with some third-party non-trivial RS. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We are discussing about a film, and you are providing arguments about persons. Hektor 13:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Roughly speaking, the rules apply universally to persons and films. Existence does not equal notability for films, either. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable film. The nominator defining it as "soft porn" is a POV judgement call. It wasn't at all. I agree not every film can be listed, but this one has a cult following and includes cast members such as Landon Hall and Sara Suzanne Brown who are quite prolific in the 1980s-1980s B-movie industry. I'm also pretty certain this film was issued or distributed by a major company, however the new version of IMDb doesn't appear to list this information anymore. 23skidoo 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Notable based on what sources? Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Badlydrawnjeff. A Google News Archive search for this film yields over 100 hits [1], although virtually all of them are accessible only for pay. (Some of the hits refer to this film's sequel, and there appears to be a band named after the film as well.) However, if we had access to Showtime or Cinemax's records, I suspect we would find that this movie played on those channels more than all of Bresson's works combined. --Metropolitan90 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I'm not convinced this can't be sourced, although it currently isn't. Neriah Davis is not a non-entity and this film is supposedly her first film appearance. Mangojuicetalk 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jeff's reasoning. If you participated here, you might also be interested in the ongoing discussion towards a film notability guideline. A Train take the 16:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No thanks. No amount of window dressing will help the fact that if there are no reliable secondary sources, we cannot (per policy) and should not (per consensus, not a directory) have an article. Verifiable existence is not enough. Please cite some non-trivial independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As Jeff explained in his original comment and response to you above, we have independent sources in AllMovieGuide and IMDb. I'm quite certain that this movie could be found in Leonard Maltin's movie guide or some other such reference book. It's a crap movie, but reliable secondary sources exist. A Train take the 19:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep If someone wants to spend the time to create this article, there is no reason to delete it. It is a mildly notable B-movie. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - any movie that achieved widespread U.S. release should have an article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It was a terrible movie but had a wide circulation and still has a cult following today. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's been released in at least two territories (US and UK). The redlink comment is a redherring, redlinks are one of the ways in which we expand the encyclopaedia. Mallanox 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not in this case, I think - those people are redlinked for a reason! Guy (Help!) 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mainly because I haven't gotten around to making them bluelinks. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, though this is a tough one. What makes a film notable? It's a minor commerical release to be sure, but if you get a film released onto DVD, it's probably notable (and the director is notable as well). The article needs to be better, though (those who care about adding more sources can start here. Oh, and anyone wanna buy this for $190? --UsaSatsui 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pr0ncruft. Another fine product of the pr0n industry assembly line. Indistinguishable from 1000's of other fine, interchangeable products. WP != All-Pr0n Guide. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Except, well, it's not Pr0n. (ok, maybe softcore). A regular on latenight Cinemax/Showtime. SirFozzie 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm satisfied that the references are reliable enough, particularly All-Movie Guide and the Blockbuster movie guide, even if you disregard IMDB. Was released on DVD in the UK as well as the US, that's pretty notable. Sure there are redlinks, but there are enough bluelinks as well including the director and some well known adult stars. --Canley 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability/Verifiability is met. 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a directory listing, period/full-stop: if all that can be turned up is regurgitation of IMDB-type directory information and recounting info obtained by watching the damned -- in other words, if no reliable sources have bothered expending any prose on this subject -- then it's a warmed-over IMDB listing. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought a deletion debate was about the interest of the subject, not the size and quality of the content. Otherwise you can delete any one line stub in wikipedia and scores of film articles. Hektor 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's about whether it can be documented from relibale secondary sources, and whether these establish encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep—for once I find myself in full agreement with badlydrawnjeff. I struggled a bit with this, and my first inclination was to say delete, but I think there's sufficient evidence that it has achieved at least a minor cult status. The fact that it was mentioned in the obituary, the fact that a band is named after it, regular appearances on television (including, apparently, USA Up All Night, international distribution, Neriah Davis's first film; all of this adds up to sufficient notability, IMO. On-line references do seem a bit weak (although the existence of the same-named band makes searching difficult), but that argument leads to a "recentism" bias. I see enough to make me confident that there are reliable sources to be found, even if Google has trouble finding them. Xtifr tälk 00:21, 29 March 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_The_Bikini_Carwash_Company_9a78.html"