Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayniggers from Outer Space

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 keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gayniggers from Outer Space

Gayniggers from Outer Space (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep Trollbait here. The film has had nearly 1.7k votes on IMDB, which must surely give it some notability. Computerjoe's talk 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This article is offensive and the deletion of Gay Nigger Association of America has set a president for this articles deletion. 1700 votes on IMDB means nothing, one GNAA member could have done all of those votes with a proxy. --BigFishy 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia is not censored. Suggestion deletion merely because of offense would indeed be in breach of WP:NPOV amongst other policies. WP:BLP doesn't apply. Computerjoe's talk 22:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  Why was Gay Nigger Association of America deleted then? Obviously the same reason for GNAA's deletion applies to GNFOS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigFishy (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

  GNAA was deleted due to utter lack of verifiability and good sources. (Basically, GNAA failed to make the newspapers say, in cat-sized letters on the front page, "GNAA F*s Up The Internets", and basically few but the Slashdot crowd and perhaps Freenoders have even a vague idea of what the heck is going on with them.) You can't say the same about this film; one can verify that it actually exists and has had some debatable impact. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete regardless of whether Wikipedia should not be censored, this movie is not-notable. It is only watched by a small group. --BigFishy 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  Note to closing admin this user has voted twice. Computerjoe's talk 23:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  Note to previous poster "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." [1] --BigFishy 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  Regardless, it's visually confusing. Lawyering will not change this. --Dennisthe2 00:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  I did put voted in italics as we all know AfD isn't a vote :P Computerjoe's talk 11:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible keep. This article has nothing to do with the GNAA, so don't bring that prejudice over here. It was covered by the Stockholm Queer Film Festival[2], for example. It has a life outside of any GNAA publicity. And WP:NOT#CENSORED. — coelacan talk — 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  It's still not notable. --BigFishy 23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the purge against the GNAA is going a little too far with this one; this was a notorious low-brow movie even before the GNAA claimed to have popularized it, and many of the film's fans have never heard of the GNAA. I also struck the double "vote." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First of all, we don't censor on WP. Second of all, it's a legitimate movie. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no news articles or quality reviews. appears now to simply exist as a googlevideo/youtube download. Nothing in the article or in the 1st 100 webhits I've looked at asserts any kind of notability. From watching the video it looks like a student style project released to public domain as there is no way the filmmaker could ever make money from this. Bambi Meets Godzilla is a cult short film - this is a flash in the pan bit of interest on IMDb and forums. Peripitus (Talk) 00:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obscure yet simultaneously notable low-brow "B" movie. --Dennisthe2 00:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reliable secondary sources? The IMDB stuff is "alleged" to be a spoof. So: is it in Halliwell? Guy (Help!) 01:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peripitus --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's been noted outside of its industry. Dismas|^(talk) 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Some further evidence of notability: "Spaced Out: A non-PC e-mail riles a group of judges" --Media anthro 14:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've added this coverage to the article's external links. — coelacan talk — 14:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Very notable, has coverage as shown above. VegaDark 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme earth-shatteringly huge, gangbusting, pie tossing, trans-neptunian, KEEP from outer space! Per others. FireSpike 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Several other users have provided links or examples of notability, and the fact that it existed (and still does exist) on iMDB is reason enough to keep it around; it's not like iMDB posts up much in the way of Indie movies. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Entries on IMDB, et al. Wikipedia is not intended to be a fluffy carebear rainbow happy-party. Fatlenin
• Speedy Keep I was tempted to speedy-close this myself; there's absolutely no valid reason for this AfD. "Offensive"? Sorry, but that is entirely irrelevant to the merits of the article. GNAA? Irrelevant as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, OH COME ON! This is just bloody stupid. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 09:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, WP:NN. --911wasaninsidejob 17:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, see, you have to actually provide an argument that it is non-notable. Since several editors have already provided evidence of notability, you would have to explain why their evidence isn't. — coelacan talk — 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as notability has been established. I have now added two references to the article. Prolog 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough, and Wikipedia's not censored. --Wizardman 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep please wikipedia is not censored and this film is seriously notable Yuckfoo 02:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Legitimate movie, notable enough. GNAA has no relevance to this either. --SunStar Net^talk 02:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and offensive. --Mhking 02:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not getting this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 30 December 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.