Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single Stream (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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Single Stream (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film, no coverage in independent sources. Ideally this would be up for a Speedy Delete (A7) but the author of the article has declined a Proposed Deletion so here we are. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Note to Exemplo347: I didn't put it up for a speedy delete because A7 doesn't apply to films! Largoplazo (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Google finds not one mention of the director/star Logan Crossley in association with the phrase "single stream". Since it's unimaginable that a film would be notable, yet never have been mentioned online in association with its director, I feel it's safe to say this isn't a notable film. Largoplazo (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As i mentioned on the talk page I was able to find a film with Toby Lee on | IMDB however i was not able to find and additional resources thus my vote for deletion.  Necrosis  Buddha  00:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment As per Talk:Single_Stream_(film) I move for strong deletion.  Necrosis   Buddha  00:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Really should be a speedy but oh well. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete While it might not be an actual hoax in the sense that this person did actually make a terrible 14 minute video, the article is close enough to a hoax to be called one for all intents and purposes. Impact: One study states that two individuals in Houston, Texas chose to refill their La Croix cans instead of opening another one because of Crossley. It's also probably attempted promotion via hoax article. It's not even close to notable...
 * Just...cite the entirety of Wikipedia deletion policy as the reason for deletion. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One word in your analysis leads me to ask you to read WP:Civility. There's no justification for being mean, and the perceived quality of a topic is irrelevant to inclusion considerations. Largoplazo (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I happen to believe that I take this article every bit as seriously as its creator did.
 * Whether it is terrible may not be relevant, but whether it is a hoax, promotional, and non-notable does seem to be.
 * If you think that saying "terrible" is uncivil, well, I envy you because you apparently haven't seen some of the dark recesses of Wikipedia I've stumbled upon.
 * I'm starting to think I'm the only one who did my WP:BEFORE and made myself actually watch the terrible video. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do believe we may be the only two people in the world who are unconnected with this film who have watched the entire film. That is how you say something negative while remaining civil! Exemplo347 (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Touche. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right. If I steal $500 from you, it isn't a crime because some people have had even more than that stolen from them. Nothing is wrong unless it's the worst of all things that could be wrong. And WP:BEFORE in no way required you to watch it. Largoplazo (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see Category:Wikipedia humor. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of the fact here is that this film in no way meets Notability and  fails on that standard  alone. Suggesting  that watching a film on Vimeo to justify its notability is  more or less outlandish, regardless this  would still fail to prove any verifiable sources for the article .  Necrosis   Buddha  15:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to the article's format I would say SoapBox would apply here as well  Necrosis   Buddha  15:06, 21 December 2016 (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.