Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FML (film)


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

FML (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability of independent student film in question. Karl 334  ☞ TALK to ME ☜  18:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This search string yields no results on Google News. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even released yet. &mdash; RHaworth 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — Favonian (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am interested - as I suspect are others - in understanding more about the source and development of new entrants in the UK film industry. This kind of detail is not easy to find. Meets WP:GNG 5  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShapeProject (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)  — TheShapeProject (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Facebook and YouTube are not reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The other sources provided do not even mention this film. Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  22:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I read TheShapeProject (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
 * WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." This topic has not received this kind of coverage. Please read Notability (films) for more information on what is considered notable. Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You’re right on WP:GNG general notability – but WP:RFD point 5 says  “Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways”  How much attention should we pay to what interests people?TheShapeProject (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RFD is for redirects, not articles. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - As the writer of the page. I do sympathise with the views expressed over the deletion of this page. However I do also feel that citing 'Is not even released yet' should not factor into the argument. Sadly, in the world of small time independent film, it is extremely hard to gain notice from someone as large as a primary source, especially while still in the production stage. I am heartened to hear that some people appear to back me up that the page is useful, especially considering it is written with total impartiality, and intended to raise awareness instead of sell the film. However, if the reasons I have put are not enough to save the page from deletion, then I guess deleted it must be. At least until the time (should that day come), the film is renowned enough to have access to a first party citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)  — Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I think there sometimes comes a time, where the upholding of rules actually starts to limit progress. The rules are put in place to a) Stop spam and malicious perversion of content, b) Prevent blatant advertising and c) To ensure the accuracy of all Wikipedia articles, ensuring that they remain factually correct. It does seem to me, slightly wrong, to penalise a fledgling company purely because they do not yet have the contacts in order to provide the wealth of citations required, especially while they are striving to maintain Wikipedia's high standards, and not posting any inflammatory content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to make something clear, I am not against this article, I am for following the rules of inclusion for this encyclopedia. I am not stoping this article from becoming notable, and once it is, by all means post it in this encyclopedia. But until then rules must be followed, because if we let this one go, hundreds of other articles with poor or no notability have to be let go and this encyclopedia will be useless. My 2 Cents.  Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  04:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and accept that you are following rules. It just strikes me that Wiki should be used to inform, and the rules have the unfortunate side effect of penalising small scale industries like music and film, and actually generating somewhat of a hole in your content as a result. It is so hard to gain the citations required, purely due the level of secrecy needed to protect the ideas in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

But these rules mean that Wikipedia is going to be unable to host articles for small independent films full stop. There is no way for them to gain citation, and as a result it is unlikely that a cultural movement will be accurately represented within the encyclopaedia. Thus wiki generates its own hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind sniper43 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is shameful that, for the sake of upholding petty rules, new entrants to the independent UK film industry are made to suffer. The page is clearly written and I for one found it informative and entertaining to read.  Therefore, I hope that the wikipedia admins see sense on this issue and agree to keep this page online.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turok117 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)  — Turok117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not "petty" rules. As encyclopedists, we have a responsibility to ensure as much as possible the accuracy of the contents of this website. This means all information must be verifiable, and by that we mean that we must be able to verify the information without having to contact the concerned parties. That means there has to be some third-party reference available at arm's length that we may consult for verification. ("Taking your word for it" means opening the door to hoaxes and projects that will never see the light of day.) If that makes small producers suffer, then that's a lesser evil, but please keep in mind that if the finished product gets enough attention once released, then your "suffering" will only be temporary. And please keep in mind that every single item that is covered in Wikipedia was at some point unworthy of inclusion, so sticking to the "petty" rules puts everybody on a level playing field. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. That's the lesser evil I was talking about. Wikipedia was never meant as a vehicle of promotion anyway. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The film is not released yet, and there is not any visible published lead-up to the release of the movie. It has no pre-release reviews from national reviewers, and fulfills none of the requirements for notability found in WP:MOVIE Inks.LWC (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete not released, and, nothing in the article indicates that it will be notable when it is release. I would, frankly, be perfectly prepared to speedy0-delete this article as G11, entirely promotional. It's argued above that enforcing the rules on notability might mean we "never have articles for independent student films". That would usually be the case, and that's exactly why we do have rules on notability .  But it has happened that student films have received critical attention, no matter how rarely it happens, and there is the possibility that one might be notable. It is also the case that a student film by someone who subsequently becomes a famous film-maker whose works are taught in courses about film  might become notable on that ground. So delete until one of the people involved become famous. thearguments otherwise amount to "ITS MINE AND I LIKE IT"  DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, student film, low budget, home production, no coverage, refs are all to facebook and youtube. jorgenev 08:17, 16 May 2011 (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.