Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/401K: End Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 401K: End Game

NN short film. Very few ghits. --Fang Aili talk 15:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IT SHOULD STAY... From the release dates, it has been touring internationally [1] for only a month, yet is causing quite a stir. With notable socially relevant content.

Number of google hits or lack thereof don't measure importance. An encyclopedia is used for research and finding information on items of importance that aren't easily researched. If you're depending on google, why even create this encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.119.118 (talk • contribs)

Just having an imdb link does not make it notable. I'm not sure how that site works, but it looks like anyone can e-mail them information, which they then post on their site. It's not reliable. If it was really touring internationally there would be many more links. --Fang Aili talk 16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IMDB verifies and fact checks all its entries through verifiable sources. You can't just e-mail them information and have them add it. Go here for extensive info [2] on how difficult it is for a film to qualify to be listed.

It must be notable and of public interest. Link is here for notability [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.119.118 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Notability claims fail WP:V. It's telling that the link to the alleged fistfight is a non-existent page, and the supposed "media reports" don't seem to exist. If it were "causing quite a stir", someone would be reporting it. Google has nothing but Wikipedia and IMDB. Without any third party sources at all, there's no support for any notability at all. IMDB verifies that it exists, not that anyone cares. Fan-1967 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream media is trying to suppress the message of this film. A lot of the links are international links and therefore don't show up on english based searches. Here is an english based link through google [4].

Since when did google become the gatekeeper for what is notable or not?

So is this "encyclopedia" just a re-shuffle of what google has in its search engine?

I know the people of wikipedia have more integrity than that!


Another link here [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.119.118 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment You have posted a link to schedules. It says the film is showing. It still doesn't show anybody cares. Where's the controversy? Where's the stir? Where are the media reports? Should we ignore Wikipedia standards requiring verifiability because some anonymous person claims a deep, dark conspiracy is suppressing information on this film? I don't think so. The internet is vast and huge. If this film actually were generating buzz, it couldn't be totally suppressed. Fan-1967 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, wikipedia users have more integrity than to disregard a notable film.

If wikipedia lists popcorn films that play in the multiplex, they have to list films that primarily exist to make a social commentary.

The fact it is being shown internationally shows people care.

I thought wikipedia had more integrity.

This is depressing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.119.118 (talk • contribs)

  • We have too much integrity to print unsupported, unsourced, unverified statements. Fan-1967 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IMDB notability guidelines dictate that a film has to be notable and verified and of public interest. IMDB vouches for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.119.118 (talk • contribs)

  • IMDB verifies that it exists. Fan-1967 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but for any film to be listed on IMDB it also has to meet strict public interest requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.119.118 (talk • contribs)

  • So they claim, but we've not found that to be the case. IMDB routinely includes student and indy films that have only been exhibited a few times, or in some cases, just once. Films that exist in IMDB are deleted here all the time. Being listed in IMDB is not sufficient to justify a Wikipedia entry. Fan-1967 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be talking IMDB pre-2005. Now strict guidelines need to be met. It has to be notable and of public interest, for exactly the reasons you state... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.119.118 (talk • contribs)

Please provide a link to IMDB's strict guidelines. The links you listed above ([6]) just point to a registering page. (Also, if you could sign your posts with 4 tildes, "~~~~", that would be helpful.) --Fang Aili talk 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Don't know what "4 tildes" means. I'm new to wikipedia...

But here are the new guidelines for IMDB.

Student films and films that have shown only once are excluded.

Link is here [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.130.93 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for providing the link. Unfortunately, as Fan-1967 has pointed out, that still does not indicate notability. --Fang Aili talk 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Actually it does. For any short film to play more than once is very notable!

The different play dates spanning several countries makes it very noteable and significant for an experimental short film. We're talking a short film here. One designed not to make money. The only reason commercial films have repeat play is because of money.

I find it upsurd hollywood drek movies are considered more notable than a socially conscious short film that's touring internationally with nobody profiting from it.

I thought this was a encyclopedia, one that catalogues significance.

  • Comment Did you even read the links you posted? This film is listed 13th among the 17 short films in that touring show. The organizers of the show didn't even consider it notable among that group of films. Fan-1967 20:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

? How is listing order significant ?

  • It means this film was not the headliner, and the organizers did not consider it any more notable than any of the others. Kind of odd for a film that's "causing quite a stir". Fan-1967 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Were you one of the organizers of the international tour?

Do you know in fact that's the play order it played in?

Even if it played 13th out of 17. That would be an effective way of protecting it, due to its controversial content.

And that is just one of the dates.

If you check the IMDB release schedule, it has individual dates in Sweden, Finland, Poland, Russia and the Ukraine.

Hardly something a "non-notable" short film could achieve!

  • All the show dates listed on IMDB are part of the "Polyester Prince Road Show" with the 16 other films. If this were truly a controversial film with a lot of buzz, the Polyester Prince would be highlighting it in the tour. No sign of that. It's just one of the pack. Fan-1967 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, insufficient showing of notability. NawlinWiki 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, little relevance, looks like self promotion. -- Solipsist 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Anon User, history has always been written and rewritten by fools. Fan-1967 has a great work badge for great deletion skills. He must feel so powerful. He must be so self-realized. Ditto for the rest, all whores to the corporate beast. Feeling powerful by deleting the significant and then choosing to comment on the trivial. Let it go. Let them delete it. Let them feel powerful... for once. They're not out making history, they feel castrated and crave power. Hence their willingness to delete the significant because of their insignificance... --Dr. Jeff Steinberg 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    User's first edit. --Fang Aili talk 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - So, this film comes highly recommended by the best newly-minted PhD sockpuppets? Well, I still can't find any reviews or articles about this film on the web, and the article is fairly nonsensical - it randomly refers to things and then links to them. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 22:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just being listed on IMDb is not enough to prove that a film is notable. In this case, the film receives no Google hits except from IMDb and Wikipedia. That suggests that it isn't causing much of a stir. I am also skeptical of the idea that high-ranking politicians got into a fistfight at a showing of this film in Washington, D.C.; however, if reliable sources verified that, I would switch to a strong keep (assuming that the fistfight was related to the content of the film, rather than just incidentally taking place at the screening). --Metropolitan90 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, any short film that plays in several different countries, within a months time is VERY notable, whether it causes a stir or not. The commerical feature films listed on wikipedia are far less notability. And that doesn't even begin to cover social and cultural significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.157.176 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete, as it fails Wiki's policies. 1) WP:V states: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Where is the media coverage? 2) WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, so please do not bring sockpuppets into this discussion saying it is. 3) WP:SPAM Affects this article as it seems to be a clever advert masquerading as an article. 4) WP:GOOGLE does provide guidelines on how to use Google to verifiy information. It is a valid and much used function here at Wiki. Finally, 5) The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an article or edit or wish it to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. --Bschott 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Seems to be crazy incoherent babble. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SOLID KEEP, Important, significant and notable. Whether people like the message or not, any film that hits several different countries (international dates have been verified), especially a short film, makes this very notable. Far less notable commercial film fare is included on wikipedia. This is a strong Keep--69.234.107.246 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We seem to have multiple keep votes from users in the 69.234.xxx.xxx range, which all resolve to the same company. Any reason to believe they actually are different people? Fan-1967 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    Nope. --Fang Aili talk 18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Southwestern U.S. movie capital of the world, probably because most people in L.A. have AT&T/SBC. And because it is showing in underground theaters in L.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.139.232 (talk • contribs)
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.