Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Kill Motherfuckers

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. Lara❤Love 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel Kill Motherfuckers

Colonel Kill Motherfuckers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable film that has a distinct lack of multiple non-trivial sources. Reading through the google hits for an hour or so, I had a very difficult time finding any source on the movie that wasn't either a blog, you-tube, or self-promotional. Trusilver 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also note that this article was given a prod tag ten days or so ago but it was removed by the article's author. Trusilver 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get that either, I have sent a message to the editor asking for him to elaborate on his position. Trusilver 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, see the Myspace test. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm really frustrated by this and don't know how else to prove a film that should be fine by it's own merit and the information I have already supplied. Here are the only other things I can think of: 1) Hack Movies has been touted by celebrities including Lloyd Kaufman and Monique Dupree. 2) (I realize I'm being vain here but...) I have appeared in numerous films and have also worked in the casting department for films and television shows including The Real World. See my IMDB page for proof. I hope this helps. If not, I will try my best to come up with more. Erkman27 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to "prove" that the film is notable, either it is or it isn't. I spent quite a while looking for something to pass WP:FILM and I was unable to locate anything. If you can find anything that qualifies the need for multiple non-trivial sources, then by all means produce them. I will happily withdrawal this AfD if I can see that this is notable. Trusilver 04:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I am having to "prove" the matter. I have to "prove" it to the people other than myself who have written on this talk page. If it wasn't a matter of "proving" it, there would be no need to have this talk page in the first place and there wouldn't be a problem. The fact is you haven't looked hard enough. This film and the other Hack films have been viewed by millions upon millions of people but it is not known because of the obvious distributor issue with some of the titles of the films themselves. Another thing you can do is cross-reference the interview sites with alexa.com There you will notice some of the sites have extremely high traffic.Erkman27 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete — Definitely not notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete as non-notable. Having a website, MySpace, and Youtube account aren't enough to assert notability. Coverage by independent sources is not provided. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is a last-ditch effort but would matter that I have been cast in a supporting role in a film called "I-59 South" co-starring Olivia de Havilland and Luke Flynn? The film will be on IMDB soon. The only proof I currently have are emails.Erkman27 (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up. Blogs can be helpful, even though they are not reliable, to show it exists as a cult film. I won't close the debate, because I don't see a consensus yet. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails the notability requirement for films, unless you count Dread Central as a "nationally known critic". Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (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.