Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Disturbed Person On Planet Earth


 * 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. Consensus is that the articles do not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Most Disturbed Person On Planet Earth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neither in the texts of the articles nor in the references is there any evidence of coming anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The sources cited are IMDb, YouTube, FaceBook, a page on a site selling the films, and a page which appears to be a blog. (PRODs on both articles were removed by the editor who created them.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't really find where this film is ultimately notable enough for an article. Schnittberichte.com initially seemed like it might be usable but offhand the staff page only shows the site's owner and mods rather than a team of editors. (IE, editors can be mods but not all mods are editors.) However even if this was usable it still wouldn't be enough to show notability for this film. Since the sequel was titled the same I was able to search for both films and couldn't find a thing, so this is going to be a delete for both movies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Schnittberichte has a "team page" showing its editorial staff. We do not care what they may call themselves as long as it has editorial oversight. Seems suitable under WP:RS.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. They seem notable enough given Notability guidelines for media considering the amount of perceived interest online, given only a small amount of looking. Also good to keep in mind given the subject matter of the film is that Wikipedia is not censored, no matter how someone might feel individually. Thirdly (and finally), given the plethora of less-notable films and media that have passed for notable, these both seem to pass easily. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not censored" is irrelevant, as nobody put that forward as a reason for deletion: it is a straw-man argument. Can you clarify what you mean by "the amount of perceived interest online"? Do you mean that it has been mentioned in posts in blogs and forums, or that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources online, or what? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim that censorship was put forth as a verbalized argument: I just know that in the past it has often been the underlying (unspoken) reason for content discrimination while other reasoning is put forth formally. (In fact, I would find it quite unlikely that it would be formally stated, even if it were an underlying reason.) In terms of interest, I was referring to formal and informal responses to the media by others online, through text and video. It is quite obvious that it is a piece of media that was produced; it is just the notability of the article that is being questioned. It has been several years since I have been a frequent editor on Wikipedia, but from 2005-2009, I created and maintained a large amount of content. I just find the recent trend towards deletion of content that seemingly has value to people troubling. Personally, I would tend to err on the side of letting content in that might be perceived as non-notable by some vs. deleting content that might be of value. I tend to look at Wikipedia content in a way similar to Blackstone's formulation. ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer") In other words, it would be better to let 10 (or 100) potentially non-notable articles in than risk deleting 1 potentially notable article. Obviously, that is a larger debate and doesn't really pertain to these articles, except in the meta sense. It doesn't really matter: I think the subject of the articles is notable and I think it is clear that there are a large enough number of other people that feel the same way online. Obviously you disagree and want to delete it, which is fine. Just remember, everything you delete that someone has spent time on and feels invested in contributes to the often referenced decline of Wikipedia through editor alienation. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing on the article suggests that WP:NFILM is met, and Googling doesn't provide any sources that would satisfy WP:GNG either. Thus delete unless someone can find reliable sources for this work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Alt title:
 * Filmmaker:


 * Delete per lacking enough coverage to meet WP:NF. Though it does seem to have caught the eye of German-language sources, it's not enough.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Exterminate. I can't believe anybody is giving this "movie" (wanna know what it really is? stolen clips from the internet, many of which have the sites watermarks) the time of day. And it's not even close to being notable. In fact, I'd wager the person who wrote these articles (and there are many parts of both articles that are nearly identical) is the loser who made these films. --74.130.39.89 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I created the articles and I can guarantee you I did not create the films. "Loser"? Really? Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like it might have caused a buzz on social media/forums, but nothing in reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2015 (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.