Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergeant Cheerleader (2nd nomination)


 * 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. BJ Talk 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sergeant Cheerleader
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a procedural AFD. Article went through a previous AFD as being non-notable (see WP:MOVIE), but was speedied by closing admin as being promotional. Article was recreated days after. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Given the apparent blizzard that was developing from the last AFD, I'd comfortably say this could be sent under WP:CSD, even if the AFD did not run full course. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

LEAVE IT:  If the Internet Movie Database is not notable, then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themensaguy2001 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sergeant Cheerleader has it's own spot on the Internet Movie Database and a simple google search reveals multiple newspaper articles about the film. Clearly this film should have a spot on Wikipedia, just like any other legitimate film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themensaguy2001 (talk • contribs) 17:04, December 13, 2008
 * Comment Since your only contributions have been to this AFD and to the article in question, I'm calling this an SPA, and an apparent WP:COI. Also, given that the original article was created by a user named, I also raise my concerns over WP:MEAT, given this being a group project. BUT, anyways, to address the claim that there is an article on IMDB, need we remind the commenter that anyone can add a movie to IMDB, and a presence there does not equal WP:RS? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of notability. Zero references.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment even with the additional links and references, this film is still not notable and the article should be deleted. It still lacks significant coverage.  An IMDB entry, an article in a campus newspaper (COI aside) and a photo in the local newspaper are not significant.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IMDB does not confer notability. It might act to confirme non-contentios facts, but notability must be otherwise established.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IMDB is an all-inclusive database that aims for completeness. Wikipedia isn't.  That's why we need other sources, too. JulesH (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep . Multiple feature articles in reliable sources about this film.   JulesH (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first ref you gave is the local school newspaper, which is by no means independent (which is also a criterion for sources that show notability) Using it to partially source the article is no problem. - Mgm|(talk) 01:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Strange naming for a school paper; the paper's name tricked me into thinking it was a regional paper.  Changing my !vote to weak delete on basis of only being able to find a single article in a suitable source, and multiple sources being necessary. JulesH (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, one is a local paper, the Daily Press is a regional paper, the Virginia Informer is a school paper. As a writer for the Daily Press (which is why I'm writing anonymously) I am extremely frustrated that individuals are calling this paper a "school" paper, when we barely cover William and Mary except for major news. -- 128.239.47.177 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'll now endorse my procedural nomination. The sources provided seem to be limited to the College of William & Mary area. The subject is not notable in the same vein that the local high school football star is not notable simply because he is frequently covered in the local paper. See WP:LOCALFAME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete No reliable sources, nothing else than IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S., anyone smell socks? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who you suspect of being a sock, User:Themensaguy2001, who is also the creator of the article, or myself. In either case, I'd suggest assuming good faith would be a good idea.  With only two keep !votes, one being from the article creator and one from a long-established editor, I fail to see any reason to suspect anything.  Besides, I have now changed my !vote in light of new information. JulesH (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article fails the standard WP:GNG version of WP:MOVIE, being mostly sourced from school papers. It fails any of the 5 points of the presumptive version of WP:MOVIE, being neither widely distributed and reviewed, considered historically significant well after its release, the recipient of a major award, included in a national archive, or commonly taught in a notable program of study.  Its only glint of a claim to notability is the "Historical significance" section, which is a mixture of trivia (of the "yellow handbags" variety, see WP:MOVIE note 6) or vastly inflated claims without sourcing. gnfnrf (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Morbidthoughts and sockpuppets. Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Morbidthoughts, and yes, the smell of socks in here is getting immeasurable! &mdash; neuro(talk) 09:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless Mohammad Rahman really does appear in this film. "unique" "landmark production", yeah right. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Snow Delete In good faith, I have ignored possible Socks and SPAS and took the article under my wing. It "looks" much better since I have given the article a major face-lift, cleaning it up and sourcing perf film MOS, removing hyperbole and POV.... HOWEVER, the only found sources are two College of William and Mary papers... The "Flat Hat News" and "The Virginia Informer" (where the film's producer Matt Pinsker is a staff writer). COI? No doubt. Reliable? Maybe. Notable? Only at the college. Sorry.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I write only to say that the publication has been covered in many regional and state papers, not just the local William and Mary papers. I'm pretty sure that this article does violate Wikipedia policy and should be deleted, but I'm frustrated that individuals have called the Daily Press and the Williamsburg/Yorktown Daily College of William and Mary papers, which they are not. OK to vote against it, but frustrating that some users wouldn't realize that. -- 128.239.47.177 (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With respects to our anonymous IP... I called ONLY "The Flat Head News" and "The Virginia Informer" papers of the College of William and Mary, because that's what their own sites say they are. They show a notability on campus, but not in the world... and there is the "minor" problem with Pinsker himself being a staff writer for the Virginia Informer, which creates a bit of COI problem in that source. I absolutely loved the coverage given by the Williamsburg/Yorktown Daily and NEVER called it a college paper... heck, I was the one added it within the article as a proper reference... but that made only one decent source independent of the subject. I also the one who added the Daily Press source to "additional reading". It was only a picture and a caption, but confirmed principle filming... but you yourself moved in into the article as a refeence. If you can find reliable sources beyond what I already found, please share them by all means. Show me the "many regional and state papers" (outside of William and Mary) of which you speak and I'll gladly add them to the article and revise my opinion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 17 December 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.