Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Jimmy

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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Jimmy

This article and movie are not notable according to wikipedias own policy. It also serves as spam for this movie. No real content to validate an article KernelPanic 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Seems to have some fairly big names attached like Woody Harrelson and Kyle MacLachlan. Unless this is some sort of hoax (and I see no reason to assume that), then it should stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan. -- backburner001 18:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on the description, and the voice cast of the English version, I think I might like to go see this one when it comes out here. Fan1967 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. I believe KernelPanic has nominated this article, which I am the starter of and main contributor to, in bad faith to retaliate against my successful nomination of IRCDig (see also his following deletion review and here where he designates "deletion nazis"). In the alternative, he should explain which Wikipedia policy his nomination is referring to. Haakon 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Has an imdb entry, notable stars. Bad faith nomination. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Article content seems objective and not advertising-related. Celebrity cast is significant. I disagree with nominator's claims of non-notability. — Mike • 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has been completed and screened, which is more than can be said for, say, Outward Blonde (a Hilary Duff film that will almost certainly never enter production). Extraordinary Machine 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note No bad faith nomination at all. It is somewhat of a coincidence that this user was the author but this was not a target for retaliation. I do not feel it is notable enough for a wikipedia article. It is at best a weak stub for an unheard of film. May also want to look into some of these usernames, I suspect most of them belong to the same person. Your use of slanderous terms like "bad faith nomination" does not make a stronger argument for your case Haakon. Oh and by the way, I was not even the author of the IRCDig article so how can you say this was a bad faith, retaliation nomination? Your just using games to try and keep your non-notable article. KernelPanic 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't cited what part of WP:Notability that it fails. It has a full imdb listing and has voice work from major Hollywood actors. As for your allegations that some of these usernames belong to the same person, the contribution histories should clear up any doubts (every other user aside from you has at least 500 edits on a wide variety of articles). OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:Notability is NOT an official policy on wikipedia and therefore proof of failure is not required to be elected as nn. You say that the movie has "voice work from major Hollywood actors" but the fact that these so-called major Hollywood actors had to get voice over work in a Norwegian animated film should tell you just how "major" they are NOT. Furthermore I find it pretty funny that in my nomination for deletion of BitTorrent search engine that Haakon agrees fully but when it comes down to an article that he authored that is even less notable than the bittorent one he is up in arms and casting slanderous comments out to redirect attention away from deletion of HIS article. Bottom line, the movie is weak and the article about is even worse. NN accusation is valid and should not be dismissed. KernelPanic 03:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Your nomination refers to Wikipedia policy. Please clarify which policy. Haakon 07:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible keep released film, is in theaters in Norway as we speak, is one of the most expensive movies made in Norway. I figured it was notable before I read about the English speaking cast. -- Eivindt@c 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 10:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like a keep to me. Frankchn 11:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Notable film with a high-profile cast. -- MisterHand 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible keep. Is this a joke? Is a film not notable if YOU haven't heard of it? Perhaps you haven't heard of this film because you don't live in Norway. It is notable not just for getting a lot of press in that country, but for being Norway's first computer-animated film. Please, don't nominate any more articles for deletion until you are QUITE SURE that they are not notable. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper - it is far better for them to have an article about a film like this than to not have it. This is one of Wikipedia's strengths (that it has articles on even the obscure things) and it is what separates it from other encyclopedias. Esn 07:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment: I've just read all of the replies here, and I must say that KernelPanic does not come off well. Being bitter is one thing, but lying about your motivations and accusing us all of sockpuppetry is no way to get respect from others (unless you know how to do it well, which doesn't seem to be the case here). It seems pretty clear to me that this was a bad faith nomination, and your attempts to explain this amazing coincidence away were less than convincing. I suspect that the only thing you have accomplished is to draw attention to yourself as a potential troublemaker - expect your edit history to be closely watched over the next while, if not by me then surely by someone else. Esn 07:17, 19 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.