Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shmatrix
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. No significantly valid reasons given to keep this article. Many are that "it is enjoyable". Proto::► 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Shmatrix
Non-notable fan-dub. Google search turns up only 58 unique returns on 256 total for "The Shmatrix". No major press mentions, all seem to be forums and YouTube links. Delete TheRealFennShysa 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Okay, so someone somewhere spoofed The Matrix. This is not exactly a world-shattering event. Having an article for this would be not unlike having an article for every single Whassup? parody that popped up back when the Bud ad campaign was going strong. -- Captain Disdain 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - How many of those spoofs are the length of a feature film? It's not a fan film because it pokes fun of the original. No Matrix fan would ever acknowledge it. The movie does a very good job at entertaining those who were disappointed with the official Russian translation. Chronolegion 13:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a question of length, it's a question of significance... and whether Matrix fans would ever acknowledge it is irrelevant. (For the record, I'm not a Matrix fan.) Neither is it a question of whether it entertains people. These are not things that decide whether or not something should be included in Wikipedia. Generally, the topic should have been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Now, I can think of some expections to that guideline, but I can't see why they would apply to this. I mean, is this a bone fide cult phenomenon? If so, fine, that's good enough for me. But if that is the case, surely there are some references to it somewhere? -- Captain Disdain 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Goblin's humorous translations created a cult following among the Russian-speakers. Unfortunately, Google does not seem to have much information related to the film. However, if you use a Russian search engine like www.yandex.ru to search for "Шматрица", you will find Russian online articles describing and reviewing the translation. For example, if you translate this article with an online translator like Babelfish or Worldlingo, you will see that Russian reviewers consider Goblin's work seriously (despite it being humorous). Chronolegion 15:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I am entirely unqualified to evaluate the Russian sites -- I mean, I don't know which ones of them have credibility and which ones do not. Take the kinokadr.ru article that you refer to, for example -- I have no idea if that'd be the equivalent of, say, Roger Ebert's site, The New York Times, Ain't It Cool News or a random internet fan thing, or none of the above. The fact that I'm reading it through a Babelfish translation doesn't really make it easier for me. =) But that said, "Шматрица" gets over 35,000 hits, and I'm assuming that it's not a word that means anything else in Russian. That instantly puts it in a different category. If someone can shed some light on whether these sites qualify as credible Wikipedia sources, I'm quite happy to change my vote here. -- Captain Disdain 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The kinokadr.ru website's "about" section describes it as a professional online magazine. Information in their articles is complete and truthful. Their attendance is currently about 200,000 visitors per month and rising. They are actively working with (Russian) movie producers, Internet news resources, press covering major Russian film festivals, etc. They offer reviews, film news, stillshots, photos from movie sets, and other movie info. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia standards are for credible sources, but I would assume that a professional online magazine qualifies. Chronolegion 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I am entirely unqualified to evaluate the Russian sites -- I mean, I don't know which ones of them have credibility and which ones do not. Take the kinokadr.ru article that you refer to, for example -- I have no idea if that'd be the equivalent of, say, Roger Ebert's site, The New York Times, Ain't It Cool News or a random internet fan thing, or none of the above. The fact that I'm reading it through a Babelfish translation doesn't really make it easier for me. =) But that said, "Шматрица" gets over 35,000 hits, and I'm assuming that it's not a word that means anything else in Russian. That instantly puts it in a different category. If someone can shed some light on whether these sites qualify as credible Wikipedia sources, I'm quite happy to change my vote here. -- Captain Disdain 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Goblin's humorous translations created a cult following among the Russian-speakers. Unfortunately, Google does not seem to have much information related to the film. However, if you use a Russian search engine like www.yandex.ru to search for "Шматрица", you will find Russian online articles describing and reviewing the translation. For example, if you translate this article with an online translator like Babelfish or Worldlingo, you will see that Russian reviewers consider Goblin's work seriously (despite it being humorous). Chronolegion 15:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a question of length, it's a question of significance... and whether Matrix fans would ever acknowledge it is irrelevant. (For the record, I'm not a Matrix fan.) Neither is it a question of whether it entertains people. These are not things that decide whether or not something should be included in Wikipedia. Generally, the topic should have been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Now, I can think of some expections to that guideline, but I can't see why they would apply to this. I mean, is this a bone fide cult phenomenon? If so, fine, that's good enough for me. But if that is the case, surely there are some references to it somewhere? -- Captain Disdain 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No matter what its fans may think, it is definitely a fan-dub/fan film, and unauthorized at that. No legitimate sources as far as I can see. Textbook non-notable, and TheRealFennShysa's argument carries more weight with me than unsourced claims of popularity. MikeWazowski 01:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- How would you define a legitimate source? Goblin's translations are reviewed in serious online magazines. This wouldn't be done to something unless they felt it was worth reviewing. Chronolegion 03:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to have been covered well enough in Russian reliable sources, it seems slightly unreasonable to expect it to have been covered elsewhere. One Night In Hackney 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, lack of English sources does not mean lack of notability. MaxSem 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I think the article exists in the Russian WP [1]. Hard to form a conclusive opinion on notability without a lot of babelfishing, but it is a reasonable article linked to a notable person and notable movie. WP:FAITH says if its good enough for the Russian WP, it deserves an English version. John Vandenberg 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:44, 12 January 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.
