Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cop 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:38Z 

Cop Movie

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A student-made film that is of no significant importance to an encyclopedia. Edit: (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to edit my own description) May I note that a major contributor to the article has removed the afd tag and added this threat: "If this wiki is requested for deletion again, we will list every possible article we can find that does not have a historical interest."  Razor ICE talk 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

contributor rebuttal -

"Leet Films is upset about the deletion controversy. We personally feel that there is no harm in having a wiki article about our little movie that alot of people seem to like. If you don't like it, I'm very sorry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.222.235 (talk • contribs)

~Matticus TC 09:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources and no assertion of notability. Google search for  brings up 6 hits, 3 from Myspace and 3 from Google Video.  Evidence indicates non notable student film.  Dave 6 talk  09:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dave6. Zero independent sources, so fails WP:V.
 * Delete non-notable student endeavour no different to the countless others that come through AfD on their way to deletion. MLA 11:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep

First things first. I was notified to not delete comments. No comments were ever deleted.

I will respond to both arguments.

(Zero independent sources, so fails WP:V. - Matticus)
 * Argument 2

If you want independent sources, we'll gladly include a section of viewer responses with opinions.

(Non notable student film, no use to an encyclopedia, etc. etc.) I feel unnecessarily targeted in the sense that there are a countless number of wikipedia articles that aren't "notable" or of "encyclopedic value", yet simply because our movie isn't known nationally means that it has to be deleted. What is notable? What is encyclopedic value?
 * Argument 1

Encyclopedia's don't include intense publication information about the comic book "Bones" for one thing *sneeeeematticuszeessss*. Nor do encyclopedias include articles about Star Wars, television shows, magazines, or popular websites like Myspace. With this in mind, and also with the fact that articles, like the ones I mentioned, DO exist on Wikipedia; I think that your argument that Cop Movie is not of "Encyclopedic Value" is irrelevant due to the fact that Wikipedia does not work that way (despite how much you guys wish it did).

As to the notable part of the argument, the definition of notable is "worthy of note or notice".

As a teenager, I know how hard it is to concentrate on getting something done. Whether it be schoolwork or a short story for some geek fantasy forum that you guys go to. I cannot begin to tell you how difficult it was for me to convince a group of teenagers to help me do a 25 minute movie. After convincing them, we took time out of our schedules after school, everyday, for about a week straight. We came to the school on the weekends. We didn't eat lunch with our friends. We did whatever we could to meet our goal and personal deadline, which we did. And although it isn't the best movie in the would, we put a hell of an effort in it and got it done when everyone told us we couldn't.

Now...is that not notable?

~ Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcopmovieguy (talk • contribs)
 * I think you're missing a few points there. Yes, you are right that Wikipedia covers many topics in far greater detail than you would find in a conventional encyclopedia. Wikipedia itself states "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", and that there is "no practical limit to the number of topics". However, that same paragraph continues with the caveat "other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page". The issue here is not that the movie is short, or made by teenagers or amateurs (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, by the way), or that anyone here wants to belittle the effort put into making it, but that none of the information is verifiable by multiple reliable sources independent of the creators. Wikipedia editors of good faith want this encyclopedia to be both comprehensive and verifiable. If the film had been shown at a festival, for example, and its programme gave details and review, then you would have a reliable independent source. If its creators had been interviewed for a local newspaper, then you would have another. Comments on blogs, MySpace, YouTube and the like cannot be counted as reliable sources, simply because anyone can make them and there is no accountability for accuracy. As the article stands at present there is no evidence of those all-important third-party reliable sources, but the AfD debate runs for a week (barring early closure) giving editors time to add them. ~Matticus TC 11:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and Comment This article should be deleted. Sorry Leet Films but it's well established that your film needs to be notable to be included to justify it having an article in Wikipedia. I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into your film, but it does not appear to qualify as notable. Just working hard at it isn't enough. A few points occur to me:-


 * (a) Has your film been signed up by a distributor and screened anywhere for the general public?
 * (b) Has your film been released anywhere commercially on DVD or for internet download?
 * (c) Are any of the actors, director, producer, writer etc notable?
 * (d) Has your film been reviewed anywhere?

If you can say "yes" to any of these, then your film may well be considered notable, if you can verify the claims.

You mention viewer responses you might provide, who are the viewers? Comments from friends you have shown the film to won't make the film notable. Jules1975 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable unverifiable Google Video clip. It's great that students make films, but please understand that not everything you do is encyclopedically significant. Thanks! Weregerbil 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:V -- Whpq 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because other things have entries that shouldn't, it doesn't mean that you can include yours. And I just can't see how the amount of effort put into it makes it notable. This is not a comment on the quality of the film itself, but rather its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Veinor (talk to me) 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing personal, and I for one applaud your efforts, but high school and college students and even professional filmmakers, authors, artists, athletes and musicians have put that much effort into lots of other non-notable projects too, and most of them aren't notable enough even for this bloated online encyclopedia. Enter it in film festivals, win awards, come back. Spielberg started with youthful efforts too. Inkpaduta 19:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above, except I'd be less charitable towards the people desperately trying to keep this article. --Aim Here 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not be generous? Just some kids who think they've done something cool. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent reliable sources (reviews, etc.). I made student films as well, but they're not notable.  ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:24, 28 February 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.