Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangsters In Love

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. Fails to assert notability with verifiable sources. --Ezeu 11:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gangsters In Love

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

non-notable film by a non-notable director and non-notable film company. Self publised on the internet. Crossmr 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Independant film. OSU80 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Contains assertion of notability: "The film is reguarded by many as the worlds first internet movie." That's pretty significant. Bryan 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
By who? Thats not an assertion of notability unless they can actually cite it. Anyone can make up a random claim.--Crossmr 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The assertion of notability is enough to save the article from being a speedy delete, but the term "Internet movie" isn't defined well enough for us to be able to assess the claim. --Metropolitan90 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'm pretty sure that the "world's first internet movie" was some kind of porn. Dina 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd bet money on that one, Dina. Fan-1967 20:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The world's first internet movie released on 25th March 2006? Highly doubtful. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete there should be a speedy criterion for an article which asserts notability with a verifiable lie. Danny Lilithborne 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You have a verifiable source showing it to be a lie? By all means, add it. Bryan 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is the worlds first internet feature film. Name another film where all communications were done online, by people who were not qualified, had no experiance and had no budget. The experiance was gained not through college, not through University but through the internet. Its composers, special effects artists, editors, cameraman and even actors were all obtained online. Its production log was updated weekly with video, music, acting and editing, giving back to the people and the sites who helped create the film. Upon the films release it was hosted exclusively online and for free, once again giving back what had been taken. The film would not be possible if it were not for the internet. Cheap low-budge or not, a feature on this size (over 100 individuals and websites contributed to the 75 minute film) has never been completed before. If you can prove otherwise then I shall retract my claim. --Joe 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
All of this user's edits are to the article in question. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Its on the person who wants the material kept to prove their claim, not for someone who wants it removed to disprove it.--Crossmr 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability not demonstrated - there are many videos on YouTube. BlueValour 22:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - "Strong Keep"(who are these creeps?) Yeh, a strenuous KEEP. The article could be re-written by someone with a better grasp of English, but I say it's a keeper. I have just read an article and interview at the BBC website as well as a lot of other positive response online. The film is an internet first and many agree. The amateur use of Green Screen technology has no doubt influenced scores of other amateur film makers to put their ideas on to tape. This does not appear to be an advertisement or anything tricky. Voters should research this more thoroughly. Notability demonstrated with full valour. keep 'er!!--JeffDeHart 11:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This said by someone who's only edits are to their user page and this. AfD is not a vote.--Crossmr 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yuck! What a smug nasty little person!! Crossmr? Why do you come back here and say unnecessary stuff like that? Did yo momma teach you nothing? Bitter little person! This film is widely known. Don't be upset because you didn't research this properly... or is it because someone had a different opinon than you? Aww.. poor lil guy! JeffDeHart 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I assume you are speaking to both of us. I'm very sorry for the personal attack. As Crossmr pointed out, I am a new user. So when she/he personally attacked me and my comment, I retaliated. I get the feeling that Crossmr takes pleasure in doing these deletions. I hope that you reprimand Crossmr as she/he is obviously a well experienced wikipedia person. I am just getting started. I was actually very shocked to have my comments rubbished by a bitter person like that. Next time I retaliate against a personal attack from someone such as Crossmr, I will try not to roast them as badly as I did in my comments. Thanks again. JeffDeHart 18:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not at all. He's speaking to you. People who sign up and only participate in AfDs regularly have their opinion called into question. Its a good indicater that sock puppetry may be going on. --Crossmr 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've just looked this up as we were learning about it in my Film course at The University of Kent. We were actually encouraged to download it. I knew that it would be on Wikipedia, but to be deleted? I was weary about leaving a KEEP comment because if you look up, you will see that everytime someone leaves a KEEP comment there is a follow up that tries to trash the POSITIVE people. What is with that? Some very hateful, upset people on Wikipedia. It's hard to fathom. This is a great film. Everyone in my class is well aware of it. The film is not racist, political, hateful or mean, yet there are such mean comments and spiteful sentiments above. It's very odd. Bad vibes boys! cheer up! This article is a keeper! This film has sold more copies of Adobe Premiere than Adobe could ever hope to! Only notable independent film makers make it on to the BBC website. Good film. Good company. Seem like nice guys... and yes, they've made themselves famous! KEEP! A fervent keep or a strenuos keep! haha. P.S. If someone is going to follow up my comment with a snide remark, then I'm going to have to assume that this is not a genuine delete but probably someone with some score to settle against someone that had something to do with this film. The comments on this page are pretty rude. Hard to understand. JustinChimento 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)- user's first contrbution signed in an identical style to JeffDeHart BlueValour 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi Justin, you seem to be new here. So, first, please don't attack people personally here (trashing the positive people). It's one of the wikipedia policies. Second, please read the guidelines on WP:AFD to figure out what constitutes an article that can be kept on Wikipedia. Third, it could be the best film in the world, but if we can't verify it (see WP:V) then we can't keep it, as anybody could write the same thing about their film. That being said, the BBC source seems to have merit. [1] is the article, so I'm going to say Keep as well, with a note saying that it should be cleaned up (notably, "first internet movie" - that's a clearly false statement). --ColourBurst 20:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And while that one source may have merit, notability requires it be published by multiple non-trivial sources, in addition there has been nothing to support the claim that this is the world's first internet film. --Crossmr 20:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi COLOURBURST! Thanks for your constructive criticism. I honestly do not want to hurt anyones feelings are day anything nasty, but I had a read of the page before I left my comment and it is shocking how the NOs seem to love deleting! Yeh... the internet's first movie? Not so sure about that one either. There are some grammar problems in the article, but the movie is well known and that's pretty good considering it's been released this year. Perhaps it WAS the first FULL-LENGTH internet film... I have no idea. My KEEP was because I have personally learned/heard about the film in Uni and the BBC have picked it up and they seemed to wnat to further the film's success so good on em! Also, the film is FREE so I can't see this article being a SELLING tool... although drug dealers always give the first one free too! oops bad joke! Look... these guys did some breakthrough stuff and I felt that the comments on this page really were too far gone. Some spiteful people. That's all. I expected to see the words KEEP or DELETE and then the reason, but you get a bunch of bitter nonsense. Is Crossmr real admin? Seems like a kid.

hey... I am new here... thanks for the advice... I have no plans to be blocked or kicked off or whatever happens to trouble makers! Thank you,--JustinChimento 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: non-notable independent film. A few minor reviews do not establish notability - there simply aren't enough significant sources in existance for this to merit an article. --Hetar 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wait, if this was deleted before (I'm reading the talk page), it qualifies as a speedy candidate (and I'd have to retract my keep.) Where's the old delete nomination? --ColourBurst 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    This user added a lot of information around this. Notably the director and the company involved (Which appears to be the director and a few individuals). The directors page was removed before and then recreated, I believe the companies as well (I know the directors for sure, I have a hard time remembering which stuff gets recreated on my watch list, and this was around a week ago). I believe this was the first time this one was created, it was put up for speedy but an admin decided to err on the side of caution since it made a vague claim to notability (which the author has yet to support even though he said he would). The piece was proded, prod was removed, and now we're here.--Crossmr 20:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ha.. ok Gotcha.. Crossmr IS admin and has just threatened me with suspension/blocking or whatever because I said I thought he was a kid? Who knows.

I can't see any PERSONAL ATTACKS within my comments and believe that the warning has no merit or platform, but I will refrain from making any statements about Crossmr again. Obviously you cannot rebute a personal attack made by admin. seems unfair, but ok. I'll play along. Sorry to anyone offended.

Colourburst, this page has been deleted before? how can you see that? Is it the same nominator? can't wikipedia prevent repeats? deleted articles from coming back? 6 month block on a deleted article's title or anything?

This film is known amongst the film community everywhere. Kent Uni is not the only course using it as a reference.

You only have to type it into Google to see that there are more than 'a few' reviews, articles and references.

--JustinChimento 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No I'm not an admin, I have no idea where you got that impression. Any user can leave appropriate warning templates on another users talk page. Articles are only protected from recreation in the case of frequent recreation. I.e. its deleted, and recreated shortly there after, deleted and recreated again. Usually after 2 quick recreates its protected from recreation for awhile. Regarding personal attacks, the general attitude of your first comment was uncivil and aggressive and clear on who it was directed at.--Crossmr 21:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok Crossmr... I am REALLY new. I get THAT impression because I refreshed the page and I had a YELLOW warning label from YOU. As a newbie it looks pretty official. Sometimes in emails and chat rooms the wrong message comes across. It's different than being face to face with someone. Sorry for any misunderstandings that I may have initiated. Thanks for the info.--JustinChimento 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The yellow warning label is just telling you that you have a new message. Anytime anyone makes a change to your talk page that pops up to let you know. --Crossmr 21:42, 22 July 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.