Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Formula (2002)

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 keep. Kimchi.sg 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Formula (2002)

• Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• keep it has a link to IMDB, that gives it notability in my standards. MichaelBillington 05:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, and yet in the very next debate you failed to vote keep on an IMDb-featured topic. Deizio talk 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per MichaelBillington. --Coredesat 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MichaelBillington. ILovePlankton 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No claims of notability in the article. Being on IMDB is a terrible argument. Heck, like Sorority Pantyhouse Girls #7 or whatever has articles there. Wickethewok 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability, and would be hard to wring one out. Having an IMDb listing has been shown to be no source of notability, and votes to keep which state that as the sole reason should, imo, be discounted. Deizio talk 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - one of the most well-known and popular Star Wars fanfilms in the genre. Easily meets WP:WEB. I'm not going to go into the nominator's motives, but his mass listing of articles that I've either written or contributed to after a recent dispute with him is interesting. TheRealFennShysa 14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Responded to at TRFS' identical allegation made here. — Mike • 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Having an IMDB page is well below wikipedia standards of notability. Just another bored-would-be film maker. What next, wikipedia pages on film student graduation films? Spare us. -- GWO
• Keep Appears notable enough, with the references it has given. --Wisden17 16:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough to be verifiable. And WP:Notability is an essay, not a guideline/policy. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Response - While WP:Notability is not a guideline in itself, there are other guidelines reinforcing the concept such as Wikipedia:Notability (music), so I don't think the concept can be just blown off. Just because there is not a specific film guideline doesn't mean you can assume the concept of notability can't be applied here. Wickethewok 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I did not mean to imply that notability isn't a sufficient reason to vote delete. However, the fact that there isn't sufficient consensus to make it a guideline also makes it equally valid to vote keep, as well as Wikipedia is not paper. Mainly, I was trying to point out that determining notability in an unbiased way is difficult, so I don't think anyone's opinion on the matter should be discounted. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|
• Keep - per TheRealFennShysa. MikeWazowski 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - no less notable than any similar fanfic. Ace of Risk 22:41, 22 June 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.