Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Overbrook Brothers


 * 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. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Overbrook Brothers

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

Contested prod. Movie whose notability rests solely on the fact it will premiere at the SXSW Film Festival. Neutral, leaning towards delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this nomination is premature. The film will screen in two days after which it is quite possible for more media coverage to turn up. Both the creator and nominator should be slapped with a wet fish for jumping the gun. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment That makes no sense. The film exists. It plays at SXSW in 2 days. You admission alone of that fact means your dispute is invalid. How is it premmature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeDubya (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's premature because by the end of this AFD the film will have aired making the AFD possibly moot. They should've waited for the premiere, then look for sources and nominate if they don't exist. (I'm not saying this should be deleted, I'm saying the AFD was brought on too soon) - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It makes sense if you're in the camp that believes nothing can have a Wikipedia article until it's sufficiently Internet Famous. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense, especially because some people (i.e. me) might legitimately be interested in reading about the film, and would like Wikipedia to document it, thank you very much. – Zacqary Adam Green (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need something to be internet famous. Books, magazines and paper newspapers work just as well as sources. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Well thats like saying "I've developed a new type of aircraft. I've built it. Its in my backyard. I have pictures to prove it. But I havent flown it." Its still an airplane. It exists, but just because no one has seen it fly doesnt make it invisible. I am confused as to why this is an issue. In your line of thought, every scientific theory should be removed from Wikipedia because Perez Hilton hasnt talked about it on his website. There are several references below that prove this is a real movie. Please check them out. BTW, the premiere is in 6 hours and I am taking the fish you recommend I be slapped with as a date.
 * Keep - It's a real movie, it actually exists, has real actors (some of whom are actually notable) in it, premiered at a real film festival. Proxy User (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2009 (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.