Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit Fever (2009 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   keep. Copyvio problem appears to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Rabbit Fever (2009 film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

vanity article by the creator of the film, non notable, unreleased subject matter by non notable film maker Wuh  Wuz  Dat  13:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2009/08/cool-movie-alert-rabbit-fever/1, Jeffrey Brown Comics: Rabbit Fever Blog entry by Jeffrey Brown about film's artwork, SJ Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com/homeandgarden/ci_13360930, SF Doc Fest: http://sfdocfest.bside.com/2009/films/rabbitfever_sfdocfest2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmchick143 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Sources are definitely reliable - USA Today, comics artist Jeffrey Brown's official website and Internet Movie Database.


 * Keep Film has been completed and is pending release, and has received notice from significant secondary sources. WP:COI certainly pertains, but the article is still salvageable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficient secondary sources to support the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, not a great article at the moment (and IMdb is not a reliable source for what it's worth) but there seems to have enough coverage by reliable sources to establish notability per the general notability criteria. There is coverage in USA Today and from Fox Business as well as the more local coverage. Guest9999 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete?There's another problem along with all the others - all of the lead text appears to be copyright violation / plagiarism of film promotional material. Google "impressively competitive and undeniably quirky competitors" and see what happens. Even the sentence under "Production Notes" that is cited to a reliable source appears to be based on text on the film's own website. I'm inclined to think the current article should be deleted and if a non-COI editor wants to resurrect the subject, they can go ahead. Deletion isn't salting. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Copyright violations can be addressed without needing to delete the entire article. A simple rewrite in less promotional terms is all that is required.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Cleanup accomplished. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There were only two secondary sources, as the Fox Business one is a PR newswire copy, but I also found a primary sources to show an appearance at a film festival, and another news story that was syndicated a few times:. Just scrapes by on notability, as it has coverage in three reliable secondary sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (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.