Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Fine Day...


 * 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, some apparent single purpose accounts disregarded. Even so, no evidence for notability or verifiability was presented. --Core desat  22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

One Fine Day...

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable and unverifiable student/YouTube/MySpace film. The only results Google turns up for "Crippled Tim Productions" are MySpace pages. Failed prod. ~Matticus TC 13:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not even a a scintilla of notability set forth in the article. Agent 86 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability - has not even been released. Please wait to recreate article when the film debuts and if it garners any awards, financial success, etc. Right now it functions as an advertisement for as of yet unheard of, unreleased film. --Ozgod 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see the harm in keeping up the article. The film seems legit and William Stuart Ross even has an IMDB page. --24.62.249.36 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate is not whether the film exists, it's whether it's notable and whether there's verifiable information about it. And what does William Stuart Ross have to do with it? There's no mention of him in the article. ~Matticus TC 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep He's right, William Stuart Ross is listed under the cast and in the plot synopsis. He does have an IMDB page, although it only has one listing. The film has someone with an IMDB page in it and has two trailers online. --Roninronin 11:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You added William Stuart Ross to the article's cast list six minutes before you wrote that comment (the time stamp in your signature appears to be wrong - please use four tildes ( ~ ) to sign your posts instead of manually entering names and times). According to IMDb, William Stuart Ross's only role was "Camper (uncredited)" in the film Magic Rock (2001), which scarely makes him notable. A page on IMDb neither confers nor confirms a person's notability. And once again, nobody is doubting the existence of this film or online trailers for it. Show us some evidence of notability and verifiability; show that this film has been documented in multiple, non-trivial third-party sources and you have a case for keeping. ~Matticus TC 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep One Fine Day has little notability at the present moment, but it is a legitimate film and a wikipedia page would help in the publicity the film needs in order to gain some notability. I think that this page should stand. -Sarah — 24.61.108.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This is my first post on wikipedia. I've been following these guys's film online for a few weeks and I really think they've got something. Let them leave up the article for a while and see if the film gains some momentum! (Trainspotter7 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)) — Trainspotter7 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Films should have an article once they're notable - not in advance --J2thawiki 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep At first I didn't post because I was afraid that I would be discredited or banned for this being my first post and therefore right now this might be considered a "single purpose account." But Anyways, I say keep the article. It's not doing any harm really, and the film is already growing in appreciation just from the trailers. It's not like this is a page for something that's completely made up or something that won't get any hits or something like that. And also, when does something become non-trivial? Because with a film like this, it's gonna be tough to get some sort of big label on it. At least give the article and film some time to prove itself before fighting to delete it. (Loki8907 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete for reason stated by J2thawiki. Comment: Many of the keep votes seem to be based on the idea that Wikipedia can be used to increase popularity for the subject, but policy strictly states that self-promotion and advertising is something to be avoided at all costs. --pIrish 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I'm iffy on whether this article should stay or be deleted, but for now I'd say it's at least mildly non-trivial and appears to have a somewhat established actor in the cast. If the IMDB page wasn't provided I would probably say delete it, but I'm going to give it a weak keep. (Third3rdIII 23:16, 22 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.