Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrent This! (The Movie)

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 Speedy delete as completely non-notable student film, utterly unverifiable crystalballism. Sole support for the article is most likely from sockpuppets. Pascal.Tesson 04:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torrent This! (The Movie)

Torrent This! (The Movie) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be an amateur/student film; no evidence of notability or verifiability, zero Google hits for the film title in conjunction with either of its stars. Contested prod. ~Matticus TC 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Haemo 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This! (The Movie), obviously made up one day, given the complete lack of GHits. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is very useful and provides necessary information for readers to understand the purpose of the article. Steelersfannumber1 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article relates to a legitimate film that is currently in development stages.Xtcapplestar 08:10, 3 June 2007 — Xtcapplestar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep: After release, there may be more information, pictures, and links to official sites. Seems like it's not an advertisement. Could use some work, but it is fine for now. If it there are still no GHits after it's release, consider for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfannumber1 (talk • contribs)
    • First, AfD is not a vote - the final decision is based on the validity of comments and how the article does or doesn't meet Wikipedia's official policies, so there's no percentage in putting multiple "keep" comments that don't actually address the article's issues. Second, the main issue here is verifiability. There is nothing so far to prove the veracity of the claims made in the article, or even the existence of the film. To put it bluntly, what is stopping any editor from making up a film title, creating an article about it and claiming with absolute conviction that they are working on it while keeping all details secret? Wikipedia's verifiability policy is what. If you read through the policy page you will see why there is a major problem with the article - if nothing can be verified in reliable, third-party sources, nothing can be kept, and the burden of proof is on the article creator. ~Matticus TC 01:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Burden of proof? What is this a trial? Wow. Well, go ahead and do whatever you want with this article, because for some reason you really don't want this article in your encyclopedia. Maybe someday you will start deleting only articles that are offensive or are completley made up, but that's not what you do now. It's a free encyclopedia, what is the point in going through all of this? You guys obviously have nothing to do but try to get all of the articles that you don't feel should be on here off. So I'm not going to continue this with all of you, do whatever you'd like. I won't lose any sleep over the fact that my movie will not be on Wikipedia. Who honestly cares that much? I hope you eventually get something else to do besides delete articles from a website that basically runs itself using Google. Steelersfannumber1 02:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Commant: Wikipedia has an anti-spam policy, which includes self-promotion by non-notable individuals, or advertising non-notable movies. --Sigma 7 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As has been said above, there are absolutely zero Google hits for this "movie" so I see no evidence that this is anything but something made up at school. Will (aka Wimt) 02:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That little input right there was really unnecessary. "As has been said above...", exactly! It's been said above. It was not "made up at school" and it is a "movie", Will. Next time read the previous comments, as I, the author, have already said it can be deleted. But, I have to say, that was a dynamite drop in, Will. Steelersfannumber1 02:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, crystal ball, unreferenced. Alternativly, Speedy delete, as the author placed a {{hangon}} tag on the page, thus adding it to the Candidates for speedy deletion. --Sigma 7 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe the author added the hangon tag mistakenly. The author created the template Template:Dontdelete, which I tagged for speedy deletion as "divisive" (WP:CSD#T1), in turn causing that speedy template to pop up on the article it was being used in. Nevertheless, the author has already stated in this discussion it (the article) can be deleted, so speedy delete WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion) now applies. ~Matticus TC 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Made up crap. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and likely not going to be notable any time soon. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:50, 3 June 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.