Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survival (film)

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. Jaranda wat's sup 21:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survival (film)

Survival (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Although interesting, this article does not include reliable independent sources or any other hint at why this film would be notable. I would nominate for speedy deletion, but there's already a contested prod in the history so we should give this a full debate. The Storm Surfer 12:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • And the full debate says ... Delete, fails WP:V, WP:NN, WP:SPAM. The article (and the IMDB entry) claims that this movie is known as "The eBay Movie," but a Google search of "The eBay Movie" + "Survival" turns up just the Wikipedia article as the lone hit. According to the IMDB profile, this flick was released only a month ago; looks like a blatant publicity snatch.  RGTraynor  13:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The method of its financing is slightly notable, but it went direct to DVD. If it had been released into theaters, I would have supported keeping it. As it is, delete. Corvus cornix 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral I removed the prod for this film, simply because I thought it merited a full AfD. I don't have any leaning one way or the other. Chubbles 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a NOBRAINER. I concur that it violates WP:V, WP:NN, WP:SPAM. It's a completely unsourced article. No source about "The eBay Movie,". No outside sources to back up other claims about the history of this film. Just myspace pages and blogs. If wiki allows this article to stay, then it sets a BAD example. Anyone could, theoritically, post a wikipage about their homevideos or other amateur arm-chair projects. What's next? A wiki page about the model jet I build sitting on my desk? Of course not.
  • Keep. It's a real movie with a real release. It's far from a home video and that's an insult to ANYONE who independently makes movies. Wikipedia should be far more supportive of such independent work, especially since this is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so long as it's factual. Deleting this doesn't provide any example other than Wiki being against independent projects.
  • Extremely Offended. I was the Director of Photography on this film as well as one of the producers, and the fact that some fool had the ignorance to come onto the page I created and delete simply because it didn't meet their standards astounds me. I think it is a sad day in the independent film community when some sour people decide they don't care for an article to be here because it doesn't have enough sourcing. The only reason we didn't have more sources is because we had to take down the official site right now due to financial hardship. Anyone who wants to call this a home movie, I think you should stand in front of the 16 cast members, 12 crew members and the 44 executive producers who sank money into making this film happen, I think that in itself speaks on how far from a "home video" it was. We all sank a straight week of 12-14 hour days into this film, as well as months of pre-production and six months of editing, and I felt it was MORE than warranted that we be able to place an article about this film on Wikipedia. The only reason it wasn't furthered established as an article is because I have a limited knowledge of how to use this site, and I was still in the process of learning. But forget it now. What's the point when this site is clearly full of people who have nothing but hate towards any kind of film that wasn't produced on a Hollywood budget. All I can say is that if this film could pass through the administrators at imdb for approval to create a profile, wikipedia should have been cake. But I guess this is what happens when people who had NO hand and in this production are allowed to edit an article without any care in the world. Iateyourpetfish 16:24, 14 July 2007


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.