Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow of the Banhammer


 * 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 -- JForget  23:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shadow of the Banhammer

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

Non-notable movie that has no reliable sources to verify any notability. Contested prod, bringing to AfD for discussion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of notability. This doesn't seem to have any secondary sources having significant coverage about it. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Userify as a harmless in-joke. It certainly doesn't merit an article. — FIRE!  in a crowded theatre...  01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of notability, coupled with it just being a joke it seems. Jmlk  1  7  10:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We Assure you. The Film's no Joke. Just where would the screenshots come from? They do not just generate themselves.--72.130.160.178 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A comment - the screenshots and clips look very cool (IMHO), but that's all you have so far. Even if you're serious, how can a garage film project like this be notable before anyone has ever watched it? Finish the film and get a distributor for it (or at least a few thousand Youtube viewers) and then it *might* become notable. See the policy page for more info. — FIRE!  in a crowded theatre...  22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, explicitly fails WP:MOVIE, doesn't have any sources other than to Youtube which in itself is a copyright violation and doesn't assert notability at all. The Dominator (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How can we Violate our own copyright?--72.130.160.178 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I don't believe Youtube releases their content on GFDL, and judging by your response, it seems like we might have a conflict of interests here... The Dominator (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So now what you're implying is that in order advance their own person interests, the MNG placed an article on a site that is blocked from most business and educational network systems and not work-citable on any form of official research? I believe that if promotion was the goal, we'd have just created a website. The Article is here so that Wikipedia has it first. When users want to search the film and the website is not yet up, they'll be able to come to Wiki and find out a small bit about it. That will be problematic if the articles been deleted. And it will certainly be problematic if it ever needs to be added again, yet the server shows it as having been deleted. Let us avoid redundancy and keep the article present, that it may now discredit the name of Wikipedia in it's absense.
 * Nope, no reliable secondary sources exist, if the film becomes notable and reliable secondary sources come to light, there will be no problem with recreating although I highly doubt that it will ever be significant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitute for creating a website. The Dominator (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you haven't FOUND any reliable secondary sources. But your oversightful form of diction seems to work just as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.160.178 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you have grasped Wikipedia's notability policy. Have major newspapers written articles about your movie? Have there been books written about the filmmakers that include this film? Has this film been a theatrical release? I seriously doubt that you could answer "yes" to any of those questions, therefore it isn't anywhere near staying on Wikipedia. I suggest reading WP:MOVIE which creates the exact criteria for film notability. The Dominator (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying it that all the producers need to do is get the New York Times to write about their film, release it in the AMC theater, and get respective biographers to dedicate books to them? Sounds simple enough. Although, provided that all of this is available for any film article that exists on Wikipedia, precisely what is Wikipedia doing that all the other sources are not. Notability is more than just the first link you can find on google. --72.130.160.178 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Enough! Read WP:MOVIE, it clearly says that for a movie to be notable, at least two nationally known critics have had to review it. The Dominator (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We are a nation apart. What critic is really nationally known?--72.130.160.178 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * one that has worked for as a main critic for a major newspaper; I see that you won't ever read WP:MOVIE so here is the general guidelines:

"As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.

The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following:

* Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with attribution in reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: * Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. * The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. * The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. * The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. 5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."

The point is, that a topic has no chance of staying unless it has been covered by reliable secondary sources, therefore as you said, YES, a news article does have to be written about your film before it's notable. I also suggest you read: WP:CoI. The Dominator (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If we pulled a local news article about it, I doubt any of you would refrain from dying to delete it. If fact, we'd try to post the news article on Wiki, and it would probably be speedy deleted before any of you ever had the chance to see it. Everyone seems to be so trigger happy with the deletion gun.--72.130.160.178 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet you STILL haven't answered the question, where are your sources? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, where are your sources? If you pull a local news article about it, it won't be deleted if you add it into the article per WP:CITE, also read WP:V a local news article alone does not make something notable. Still, I doubt you'll even find a local news article. The Dominator (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Erik. Risker (talk) 00:58, 10 March 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.