Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Blues


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice Blues

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unremarkable film LAA  Fan  03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  04:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsourced; might be a hoax. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Clearly is not a hoax, as some very brief research revealed. Come on, guys, let's do better than this. S.  D. Jameson 03:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - okay, you're right, clearly not a hoax; but does it (the film, not the book) have any notability, given that it isn't even out yet? I still say Delete, because it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation to say it's gonna be notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say when one of the sources is the New York Times, notability is established. There were a ton of other available sources as well, I just picked a few of them to illustrate why this should be speedy kept. S.  D. Jameson 04:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A stubby listing like the one you provided from the Times does not constitute substantial coverage. I feel that this is still a WP:CRYSTAL violation (but I do want to commend your research efforts, Dean). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I research every AfD I comment in--especially those in which it's asserted that the subject is (or might be) a hoax. I don't assert that the Times gave it "substantial" coverage, just that the coverage it did get, combined with all the other potential sources out there, make your crystal-balling concerns moot, in my view. S.  D. Jameson 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that it is not a theatrical release, but a made-for-TV movie. Not everything on the tube is notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's beginning to sound an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Mike. Certainly, not everything "on the tube" is notable, but we're not AfDing those hypothetical, non-notable "everythings", but this notable movie. S.  D. Jameson 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Notability has been established. Article sure needs work though.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That it does, I do not deny. Which is why I've placed the list of sources I've found so far on the talkpage, and added a couple to the stub. I have so many irons in the fire now with articles I've created that I don't know if I have time to work this one up myself, but I may try some tomorrow. S.  D. Jameson 05:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just did a further quick search. Jameson got it veryright. Wow! There's lots out there. Changed vote. Lack of sources is no longer an issue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank those people who recommended this article for keep, particularly those who have had the experience and knowledge on Wikipedia to match and counter the arguments of the article's detractors. I chose not to create an article for this movie until I was able to specifically make sure I had a copy of it in my hands and I knew that it would be debuting on the same television channel the other three in the series had within less than a month. Another user was the one who changed the link of the main Donald Strachey page to reflect that Ice Blues was out with a definite rather than speculative year of release, not me, and it's only because he had done so (after he'd personally watched the movie through official channels) that I followed his lead before even making the decision to perhaps create an article for this movie at some point in the future when there were enough factors for creation of a stub to be appropriate, and furthermore this user is an admin. I am not sure about the hierarchy here at Wikipedia, but from what I have looked for and not found on their user pages, neither of the two people who are pushing hardest for deletion of this article can say that about themselves. Hopefully, it takes more than jumping on an article faster than white on rice with inaccurate speedy deletions that are changed later to deletions and then pretending that those speedy deletions didn't occur mere minutes ago to earn that coveted status. I have been avoiding even coming back to this page for several days because of this "debate". Time that could have been spent updating it. Frankly, all this kind of thing does is dampen my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, and perhaps enthusiasm in general from many potentially very useful contributors. I also find it highly suspicious and distasteful that the same person who seemed to be "helping" me avoid 'speedy' deletion also wound up recommending that this be deleted, particularly when he didn't seem to waste any time pointing out "incorrect" use of hang-on tags, but didn't seem to take the time to do the research to verify that this movie is clearly not a hoax. In other spheres we call that "concern trolling". FYI, the article *WAS* nominated for speedy deletion, in fact the nominator actually, whether deliberately or inadvertently, sent a speedy deletion notice for the movie to me twice. The first time, nominator got the impression that the article was about "a person or group of people" despite the fact that the stub clearly stated that it was a movie. The second time, nominator thought it was about a "club"; again, information clearly stated what the article is about. After realizing neither was correct, nominator decided the film was "unremarkable", at least once (s)he figured out it was a film. If before nominating this article for deletion (speedy or otherwise), users concerned about the article's conformability to notability requirements (let alone that the existence of the movie was entirely a hoax) had gone to the entries for the first, second, and/or third movie(s) in this series (clearly linked from the stub article), and checked those pages' histories, they would have found out that a) they are movies, b) not only are they obviously not hoaxes, but c) the articles for said three earlier films have all been going through an ongoing process of modification -- the second and third had started as stubs but are largely becoming full articles -- before this whole 'controversy' started, I was even working on synopses for all four, starting with the first. The distaste caused by some people who clearly want this page deleted has turned me off of putting the same degree of effort into updating it since the rush to delete started. Hopefully this debate will be closed at some point soon and I can get back to work on fleshing it out as I have the others, and continuing the process with the others as well, which are far from full-fledged articles worthy of a finished Wiki product. Perhaps a silver lining to this is that it got some of these movies noticed by others and those who are better versed at what are suitable for footnotes and citations have added some. I would welcome similar notations on the entries for the other Strachey movies; specifically, this one. Also, a citation for Shock to the System's screening at the Outfest film festival (as noted in its article) might be helpful; here's a tip on where to start. While I've got people's attention, I'd welcome tips from more experience Wikipedians on how best to pursue a section on how the books differ from the movies; should I just put a general overview on the main Strachey section or compile things specific to each individual movie vs. the corresponding book it's adapted from? Any tips would be appreciated, and I can fill in the gaps for people who have little or no info on the individual books/movies. I had more to say about this, and more comparisons to be made to other articles that should and were kept by overwhelming consensus simply by factors analogous to the mere fact that a series of books that began in '81 and (presumably) ended in '03 have been adapted into films, it meets Wikipedia's notability standards (citing other comparable articles where the deletes were overwhelmingly outnumbered), but I'm guessing my point has been sufficiently made and I won't get into that. I trust that a consensus is being forged and this discussion can soon be considered closed. Homoaffectional (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The directory listings posted above don't impress me much, but I'll take this one as evidence of notability. 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added another reference (Daily News (New York)). Axl (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep! (Speedy, even, if that will resolve this debate sooner and remove the delete tag from the top of the page.)
 * Look to your talk page.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Saw it. I've already issued an initial clarification (which is available as a response to your entry on my talk page, and you can check it out there) and am working on a full response.  It should be ready within the hour. Homoaffectional (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad we're okay. Ice Blues will be a great addition.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:36, 17 August 2008 (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.