Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steal This Film

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 No consensus. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 13:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steal This Film

Steal This Film (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I'm suspicious about the notability of the "film series" in question. For example, it is completely nonexistent on the Internet Movie Database (not to be confused with the notable Steal This Movie), and it just seems like something that somebody has thrown together and started distributing over the internet. I ran a Google Search to receive 48000 hits, but a very large proportion of the websites are merely torrents sites from which this "movie" can be downloaded, and I personally wouldn't call the sources reliable. Even the purported official website of the film seems completely unreliable. Hopefully this discussion will reach a good consensus. Ackatsis 04:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. "It was released in August 2006 only via the BitTorrent protocol for peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing." Just some web content with no evidence of notability provided. A forum thread can't be used as a notability-asserting reference. Someguy1221 04:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - ditto above. Oli Filth 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 11:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep because it was a (and maybe the only) movie released ONLY on bittorrent and it is more known than half the movies on IMDB with a large subculture. I haven't seen the movie, but it is said to cover several important topics that are more than "important this year". Including: copyright, "fair use" and the ability of the US to prosecute US laws in other countries, as well as the difference in laws between countries and the problems associated. The notability is absolutely established, even if the content is controversial. As to the cheesy website and content, well, you just may not 'get' the scene. Intentionally bad graphics and linking still also doesn't diminish notability. The Pirates Bay, the source, is also very noteworthy and seem to get press weekly. Pharmboy 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The Pirates Bay article is a blog. Blogs have no peer-review, and anyone can write one...about anything. Therefore they can't act as reliable sources, or help prove notability. What we need here are multiple, reliable, indepenent sources discussing this movie to prove that it's notable. Merely covering "important" topics doesn't make it notable. Someguy1221 09:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment I heard this arguement on another article: "If it isn't in the NYTimes or other big media, then it isn't reliable." I just don't buy the arguement that coverage in many smaller outlets, even "unreliable blogs" is meaningless or doesn't make it notable. If that truly the case, half the music articles on Wikipedia would be deleted and we would only have articles on Madonna and Britney Spears, and half the indy films wouldn't "be notable". As for links, Slashdot and everyone else has written about it, to the tune of over 45,000 hits, and each is a combination of reviews by thousands of real people, AND you can watch it on Google anytime to 'verify' that it exists. This isn't mainstream, but obviously SOMEONE has noticed it. Pharmboy 00:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete [a vote from the nominator]. Sorry, I wasn't certain if my "delete" vote was already counted or not. In any case, I am highly suspicious of the film's notability, and vote delete for the reasons outlined in my nomination. Ackatsis 08:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have just seen the film, and its well made and relevant. Is the main argument against it that it is distributed through bittorrent? Because then you shouldn't have articles with some Smashing Pumpkins and Soad albums and a lot more stuff wich isn't sold. The film also talks about "The Pirate Bay", wich is very much discussed in my native country - Sweden. Dummer 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue is the complete lack of notability. The bittorrent part just reinforced that notability is unlikely to be satisfied, as web released movies are not going to get much attention, if any, from reliable sources. Smashing Pumpkins albums, on the other hand, are very likely to have such sources given that they were created by an extremely notable band, regardless of their medium of publication. Someguy1221 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This film is important for anti-copyright movement and piracy culture. Articles BitTorrent, Piratbyrån, The Pirate Bay, link to this page. --Stepanovas 11:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. See above Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd like to point out that no one has actually addressed the main issue here, which is lack of notability of the subject, aside from requesting that blogs be classed as notability-asserting sources, or using subjective measures of "importance." Someguy1221 03:54, 2 August 2007 (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.