Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 1 Second Film (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   keep. (non-admin closure) treelo  radda  19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1 Second Film
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Sorry but as WP:INTERESTING as this little project may be, this unreleased film is not yet notable and relies far too heavily on blogs and the like for sourcing. The WP:CRYSTAL issues aside, it simply lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third-party publications. Ironically, the article itself even makes that very point!! JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons I've outlined as nominator. Projected release date is 2010?  Come on.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, true, the release date is 2010, but it's not the film itself that makes it notable, but the social aspects.  It's well-sourced, this is a well-known project.   Corvus cornix  talk  07:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well sourced? Are you kidding me?  Remove all the references to IMDb *MESSAGE BOARDS* and what you have left is table scraps.  JBsupreme (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , unfortunately most of them are archived.  Corvus cornix  talk  17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources outside of IMDb message boards. IMDB freaking message boards. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paul Erik's save, plenty of good sources now. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. This film simply is not yet notable, and we really should not be citing message boards or blogs for encyclopedia articles, either.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I say this after having just read all the links provided by Corvus cornix above.  The mentions were either press releases or trivial mentions in passing.  Nothing substantial at this time.  RFerreira (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of recent changes made to the article, the new cites are more than substantial enough for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added references, all predominantly about the film: there is coverage in Canada AM, Windsor Star, The Province, The Daytona Beach News-Journal, Brandweek, and even a New Zealand newspaper, The Sunday Star-Times. There's now more than enough there for WP:N notability. Keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those look suitable I think. What should be done about all the material being sourced to IMDb forums?  JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. The article is much improved, and I think it's enough to meet our standards. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per major improvements.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it seems notable enough; and for what it's worth, the only IMDB Message Board sources are contained within the "IMDb History" section and give information from the IMDb officials that isn't recorded anywhere else (and is required for that section of the article to explain their otherwise mysterious actions), so in that context I feel they're appropriate. It's not like they're just postings from some random user, this is an official declaration straight from the horse's mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangocow (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 September 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.