Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Attacks Seagulls

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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 12:06Z

[edit] Animal Attacks Seagulls

Animal Attacks Seagulls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Apparently an amateur film by some high school students. No indication it has been released. Not verifiable, not notable. Fan-1967 21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • i dont think it should be deleted, it's a great film and a great siteSimonburns 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hate to say it, but you're going to have to come up with some notability assertion other than random reviews from a webpage. See WP:NOTABILITY for a good guide to what you're up against. --Dennisthe2 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above statement as I have edited myself with an added screenshot of the film and logo as well as release dates. Skates3000 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Released where? Distributed by whom? In what theatres? Most importantly, where are the Reliable Sources that will Verify any of the material in this article. Fan-1967 21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NN. The comment above from User:Simonburns is an opinion.--Anthony.bradbury 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nothing in the article is sourced to prove notability. --JudahBlaze 21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The question is, can those claiming the facts about the film prove the content of the article, using material sourced from reliable, third party sources like newspapers or magazines? If this can be done, then the article will stand a chance of inclusion. Saying "I like it" isn't enough. -- saberwyn 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks independent reliable sources to show it is a notable film. Has it been shown in theaters or at film festivals? Has it been reviewed in newspapers or magazines? Has it won awards? Edison 21:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Per the article, it was filmed with a Nokia 6280. -- Fan-1967 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, now that's some high tech equipment. I think that's going to set a precedent in Hollyweird! -- Dennisthe2 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, lots of famous directors started back when with 8 mm. Edison 15:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It lacks sources. To answer other editors, according to the revised article, it has been released on CD. Total sales of about 35 units, 40 pence a piece, 13+ pounds total.Secateur 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, isn't that about the price of a blank CD? Fan-1967 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If you think the profit margins are razor thin now, then wait until they get Carrot Top in a lead role... --Kinu t/c 07:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:RS and WP:V. Searching for "Animal Attacks Seagulls" in Google scores exactly zero hits. -- Whpq 23:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete, violates WP:V, patently non-notable and the definition of WP:NFT. I'd love to see if anyone can give a reason to keep other than WP:ILIKEIT. --Kinu t/c 00:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete this one please it cannot be reliably verified under film guidelines Yuckfoo 02:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Editor attacks nonsense. Robertissimo 03:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Robertissimo stole my idea. :P Danny Lilithborne 03:49, 21 December 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.