Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishermen Movie

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. – Avi 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fishermen Movie

This is an unreleased, independent short film created by an artist with (currently) minimal notability (see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Who Killed Hitler And Then The Bigfoot). Fails WP:V and WP:NOTFILM. -- Scientizzle 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, though your comparison to The Man Who Killed Hitler And Then The Bigfoot is severely flawed; this movie does not need Bruce Campbell. Very important detail right there... EVula 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As with the article on TMWKHATTB, I feel the notability is being severely underestimated. While Fishermen has never been commercially released, it has played in filmhouses, it has been showcased to producers, it has been widely downloaded and viewed through the homepage, and it has been shown (as mentioned in the article itself) at a film festival. The article has been written in response to demand from fans, and even if we put aside its status as an independant film, it is notable as being a 'back yard' movie that earned its creator a hollywood contract. Kinestra 23:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • it has played in filmhouses -- this claim doesn't appear in the article and is unsourced. The film festival, Brickhouse Young Filmmakers Festival, doesn't appear to be notable. it is notable as being a 'back yard' movie that earned its creator a hollywood contract in which case it would belong as a small subsection of an article on the creator. WP:NOTFILM is pretty clear about means through which to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. -- Scientizzle 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I have mentioned already that these articles are still under construction...I am most willing to add any relevant information that is required, but I have spent more time today trying to get through all the complaints levelled at me than I have actually adding content. My point in any case is that Fishermen has had a great deal of public exposure and the article is in response to demand for a factual resource. Surely 'notability' comes down in the end to whether it is something people are likely to come looking for in an online encyclopaedia. The answer in this case is undeniably 'yes', as it was public pressure that prompted its creation. Even so, WP:NOTFILM clearly states itself to be a guideline and not a Wikipedia policy. Kinestra 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, "the public wanted it created" is a poor argument. Can you cite a source for this claim? I have a very hard time believing that people around the world were thinking "Man, that Wikipedia is okay, but if it had an article about Fisherman, it'd be awesome!", or anything even remotely similar.
      And yes, you're right, WP:NOTFILM isn't a policy (yet); however, it is the closest thing we have to a guideline on the matter. In cases where there aren't specific rules about something, open discussions such as this one are all the more important. That said, there still isn't evidence to prove this movie's notability. Do you have anything other than "public pressure prompted it"? Anything verifiable? EVula 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This is an impossible situation - what you're asking me to verify is the pressure from the fan following, without referring to a 'self-published' website, which is the very place that hosts the news blogs, reactions to news blogs, forums and fan discussions. I can supply a link to the original thread in the fan forum that greeted Fishermen's online launch, for what it's worth. All I can say to you is that there is considerable interest in a wikipedia article on this topic, mostly because its popularity outweighs the reliable information currently available about it. I feel like a snake chasing my own tail. Kinestra 11:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's because you've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. You need to seek the proper outlets for your primary source material. Wikipedia is not the place. Uncle G 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• As Kinestra (talk · contribs) has explained both here and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Who Killed Hitler And Then The Bigfoot, this is clearly a gross abuse of Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, to host the original never-before-published documentation for a film, with the intent of citing Wikipedia as a primary source elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance nor a free wiki hosting service. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. The place for this sort of thing is the author's own web site. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think you will find that I quite clearly stated the reasons for writing the pages as being response to demand for a reliable article bringing together what has until now been very loosely collated factual information (not, I might add 'never-before-published') . While I am doing my utmost to find the kind of third party citations wikipedia asks for, this is not a straight forward task due to the nature of the topics and the restrictions of the internet. The IMDB entry I mentioned was not the reason for the writing of these articles, and I never suggested that it was. What I meant to demonstrate was that there was an IMDB entry in the offing, which would allay 'notability' concerns but that there continued to be a similar issue with the availability of suitable citations. The fact is that the IMDB entry does not rely on the wikipedia articles. They would help a heck of a lot, and it would mean that after a short grace period everyone would have their citations, and the articles would be able to fulfill their primary purpose of fully and factually informing people. I am not involved in the IMDB process, and I am party to no more information on the productions than any other fan, so I can't speak for that side of things - it's just an issue that I was aware of that I thought relevant to the 'notability' concerns. I apologise unreservedly if I have caused or been the subject of misunderstandings as a result. Kinestra 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • An IMDB listing would not allay notability concerns. We have a very strict policy regarding what can and cannot be listed; IMDB, as far as I can tell, does not. (for example, *I* am actually on IMDB, but that doesn't parlay into a wiki article) EVula 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes you did: "there will very soon be an IMDB entry relevant to all of these concerns and cementing the production as 'notable', but the entry cannot be created without the wikipedia pages on Krzykowski's projects as third-party references" Uncle G 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I addressed this in the discussion of TMWKHATTB - it turns out this was in fact a factual error on my part, for which I apologise, but in either case I did not say that this was why the articles were written. The IMDB issue came to my attention after the articles were begun, and I thought (again, apparently mistakenly) that it would be relevant to the situation. I feel that these articles are being persecuted with some amazing vehemence - they are factual, they are in popular demand, they are relevant to a number of notable motion pictures in production and an acclaimed artist, and I am entirely willing to give the references they lack, but I am only a fan trying to write about something I have no direct contact with; I can't wave a magic wand and make hollywood producers bare all. In the case of Fishermen, I will be able to give sources and reference to third party articles, but they are not instantly available to me. Kinestra 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems like an interesting movie that someone might need some information about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpharigel (talk • contribs)
• Cut down and merge to Elsie Hooper This film only has encyclopedic notability in relation to the Elsie Hooper film project - insufficient for own article Bwithh 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear that Elsie Hooper has sufficient notability either - its optioned content for a movie in "development hell" which might eventually be made. There must be hundreds of thousands of movie projects that are optioned but never produced. The claim that this is the first online webcomic to be optioned ever is unsourced. Paging Hahnchen.... Bwithh 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the status of the Elsie Hooper movie, the news sources are quite out of date - something I will rectify ASAP. The movie is in fact now moving into production, but I'm waiting for verifiable information on the most recent developments before I risk writing them up. Likewise, the unsourced claim of 'first online webcomic' etc. should be sourced soon - it's all on the to-do list in between sorting out the issues with these pages. Kinestra 21:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete no sourced evidence of notability per WP:NOTFILM or otherwise. Eluchil404 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Might be a good topic for some other web site besides Wikipedia. WillyWonty 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Does not meet the requirements of WP:V, and Wikipedia is not a free ad site. -- Satori Son 14:36, 27 October 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.