Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Who Killed Hitler And Then The Bigfoot


 * 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. We're not a publisher of original thought. --Core des at 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Man Who Killed Hitler And Then The Bigfoot
This is an article about a screenplay by a webcomic artist. Parts of the screenplay has been published as a regular feature on the website. As a screenplay, it doesn't satisfy the questions presented in WP:NOTFILM (it seems to have interest from producers but hasn't reached pre-production). As web content, it fails WP:WEB. Twice it was prodded, both times it was removed, with a reason of "ambiguities" being cleared up. I think it's pretty clear this screenplay is non-notable. hateless 18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This movie needs to be made with Bruce Campbell, though. EVula 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:V & WP:NOTFILM. Campbell is a perfect choice, though... -- Scientizzle 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Fang Aili talk 20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per EVula and Scientizzle, and Wikipedia shouldn't be a depository for all screenplays.-- danntm T C 20:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand the concerns about this article, but must stress that the screenplay is in the works as a motion picture, the article is under construction as details of the production are released, and this article is being written in response to demand (from a considerable fanbase) for a reputable source of factual information on the subject. As far as verifying the information goes, there will very soon be an IMDB entry relevant to all of these concerns and cementing the production as 'notable', but the entry cannot be created without the wikipedia pages on Krzykowski's projects as third-party references. I have already explained this difficulty to Scientizzle, who suggested suspending the creation of these pages until we have the IMDB reference, but as I have already said: For the IMDB reference, we need wikipedia pages. Even so, this is an article about a developing motion picture, in which there is a great deal of public interest - not about 'a screenplay by a webcomic artist'. I feel there is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of TMWKHATTB. Oh yes, and I strongly suspect that Bruce Campbell was not entirely out of mind when Krzykowski wrote it. Kinestra 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Recreate the article when it is a movie.Edison 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Something to do with a crystal ball. BTLizard 10:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "this article is being written in response to demand [...] for a reputable source of factual information on the subject", "the [IMDB] entry cannot be created without the wikipedia pages on Krzykowski's projects as third-party references" &mdash; This is clearly a gross abuse of Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, to host the original never-before-published documentation for a film, with the intent of citing Wikipedia as a primary source elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance nor a free wiki hosting service.  It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  The place for this sort of thing is the author's own web site.  Original research. Delete. Uncle G 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said in the Fishermen discussion, it seems on more recent information about the IMDB process that my previous comment was misjudged and factually incorrect - for this I apologise, I am relatively new to wikipedia and know nothing about the processes these films are going through besides what I have been told as a member of the fan community. Nevertheless I stand by the fact that the articles were not created for the purpose you suggest. It is not a case of 'never-before-published' documentation, because as I have said, the demand for the article was for a logically compiled source of information that is otherwise disorganised and hard to find. Kinestra 12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTFILM?  Technically it is NOTFILM because it's not been made into film. Anomo 02:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ideas for movies are not notable. WillyWonty 22:49, 24 October 2006 (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.