Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Assassinator

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. --Coredesat 01:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Assassinator

The Assassinator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete This is not notable, and is just a student project Andrew Duffell 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant Delete unless references can be added to establish independent coverage by the closure of this discussion, but let this run for the full five days to give the creator a chance, since this nomination is another hairtrigger created-and-nominated in the same day AfDs — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Not reluctant at all Delete, nonnotable student/YouTube film, I'm holding off speedying this only out of respect for Iridescenti's opinion. NawlinWiki 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • My opinion isn't worth that much - go ahead & speedy if you want; just seems that the article's new enough that it may not be complete & it could conceivably have won some kind of award etc etc that hasn't yet been added. I find this unlikely & agree this looks like spam for someone's youtube page — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Seems a film of that title would get you kicked off a campus these days. --Infrangible 03:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• CommentThe first film was made a couple of years ago, long before the tragic events at Virginia. The sequel is not based around the lives of students; simply in the town of Durham. Both are UK based, so there is little chance of the film being actively prevented by the authorities. That said, the film makers (myself included) are currently considering changing some aspects to make the film more sensitive to the events at Virginia Tech. Slimjimmyb 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that the article has been mostly written as self promotion by those involved with the film, and largely for the wrong reasons. The reaonsSlimjimmyb stated on the talk page are not good reasons, but infact reasons that a website should be set up for the film for such content--Andrew Duffell 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I prodded it because notability wasn't established. Quoting some discussion on the talk page: "what this sequel has in spades, is potential. Even without the Patric Stewart footage, it has many reasons to become highly notable as a student film, but WITH the footage, it will be relatively unique!" The repeating theme is potential. It's not there yet. Once it becomes notable, that's another matter, but for the time being, it's not notable. Recreate it once it achieves notability, maybe, but now is too soon. —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 18 May 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.