Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unforgivable Trilogy


 * 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. WjBscribe 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unforgivable Trilogy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. Appears to be a film made for Youtube earlier on this year. 2 million hits....no trouble for something vaguely interesting. But is it encyclopedic? I'm inclined to think not. -Splash - tk 22:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's unencyclopedic and bordering blatant advertising. Oh and Splash, which template is it that you hate? AfD? If so, yeah using it is a pain, huh? -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The stupid REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD that isn't actually useful for anything and adds junk to a) the nomination process, b) the nomination and c) the closure process. Splash - tk 23:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Blatant advertising? Hodge-Stansson has yet to make any money. I don't work for Hodge-Stansson, nobody does. They're aspiring filmmakers who have garnered a lot of attention in varying youth communities. There's been numerous requests for some sort of wikipedia article on Hodge-Stansson and especially the acclaimed Unforgivable Trilogy. Two million hits is not common for any video that is 'vaguely interesting,' that's ludicrous. Can you cut the elitist bullshit and at least give me a chance to flesh out the page with some third-party critical sources, newspaper articles, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment. You've already been given time. Splash was good enough to make this an AfD instead of a speedy delete. So in theory you have until this discussion reaches a consensus. AfD's take a little time usually, so you should have enough time to improve the article if possible. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable movie. ArchStanton 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Briefly, what constitutes a notable movie? Will the release of the DVD appease you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm trying to get the rights to a State University of New York article printed on the forthcoming DVD release. Will this help? I'm new to Wikipedia, I'm just trying to legitamize this article. You guys don't seem to realize how many people want to read this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Why would you delete it? It obviously impacts a large number of people and they can relate to the artistic apeals and interests of the artists herein. The deletion of this page is unnecessary seeing as it provides information on artists that provide entertainment and inspiration for millions, it is clear they are on the verge of something meaningful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.243.148 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - no references to establish notability. -- Whpq 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete along with Hodge-Stansson Productions -- There are no reliable source citations to establish the notability of either, and as for it's potential notability, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it the place to "legitamize" (sic) anything ... anyone can put their wedding video on YouTube and then sell DVDs, but that does not make it worthy of an article here, unless more than one reliable publication (i.e., not just blogs) reports on it as being newsworthy for the sheer number of sales ... see Attribution. &mdash; 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Akeelah, you found a spelling error! I said I was looking to legitimize the article, not the concept itself. Thanks for the helpful advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-10T23:04:12


 * A State University of New York article is soon to be published (to my knowledge, it's not yet been published) on the Trilogy, HSP, and the forthcoming DVD. That's a notable source, and to my understanding I would generally need at least one more in addition to the SUNY interview? Is this correct?
 * Comment. If you have to try that hard to scrounge up secondary sources, it's probably not notable...and I'm honestly hoping that this SUNY article isn't a student newspaper article, because that doesn't really qualify as a reliable source. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not sure at the moment what kind of University publication it is. Just curious, do you guys write much? Or generally just delete other people's articles? And what do you do vocationally?
 * I'll be the first to admit I'm a bit deletionist. Lately I have been trying to do more monitoring of new articles, but I have created about 20 articles and massively contributed/revamped another dozen articles or so. I'm also an engineer. IMHO, we're not trying to be difficult. However, I think most of us would like Wikipedia to be a comprehensive, proper encyclopedia and as such don't think every POV and idea need be represented. The notability guidelines and neutral point of view policy are good methods of measuring and deciding what should be here. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer Wikipedia to be in congruence with actual scholarly encyclopedias (ie. Britannica)? What advantages, if any, do you see in a online, public encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesowen237 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete as per comments from 68.239.79.97 above. AfD makes no comment about whether the video is "good" or not, or how legitimate it is. It purely looks at WP:NOTABLE and I find that based on what has been said here and my own looking around, it fails this criterion. AfD should not look at how well the article is written, either - this is purely about whether or not the subject should have a WP article.  Right now, I do not think it is notable enough, and  WP is not a crystal ball. If it becomes notable in future, then an article could be developed. (It would help if you signed your comments using ~ at the end.) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP. If you believe this article to not meet encyclopedic standards then EDIT it!!! There is absolutely no reason to delete it, as the Trilogy has recently had a HUGE impact and following among American youth. Why delete information pertaining to its existence? Wikipedia is a place where ALL types of information are shared, not a HAND PICKED selection of human knowledge, as is found in Encyclopaedia Brittanica. If this article is poorly written, then edit it. That's the concept of Wikipedia, and deleting this article is doing no good for anyone, except saving a few KB's on a server. 142.157.201.134 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Neoelitism 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: is now blocked for excessive vandalism. Part Deux 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue for this AfD is not whether the article is written well, but instead whether the subject is notable or not. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information the subject of articles have to meet certain criteria, one of which is WP:NOT. Notability requires more than claiming that "lots of people know about it" - it has to meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements, including A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability. That is what I have as yet seen no evidence of. If such evidence can be shown, I am willing to change my vote. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. He is aware of WP:NOTABILITY and what it generally implies, as am I now similarly informed. It's been posted in almost every previous "delete" vote, and there's no need to repeat it four hundred times; your vote will do, thanks. I think what 142.157.201.134 is having trouble with, as am I, is that essentially you are admitting that as the series is popular, and has developed a cult following, a significant amount of individuals would find this article particularly interesting. And I (and him as well, I'm sure) am almost disturbed that, as such, you still defer to the archaic Wikipedia Guidelines. I don't even think you would argue that there are really no construable advantages to the deletion of this thread, or at least no substantial advantages. Do you want to save a couple KB's webspace? Do you want to prevent others from taking inspiration and writing articles about their four-million-times-viewed cult phenomena? Or are you just petty sticklers who need rigid guidelines in every aspect of your lives? Jamesowen237 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I repeated it because it seemed that the poster appeared confused about what criteria we are supposed to use to discuss this and wanted to try to clarify. As for the "my vote will do" comment, I would appreciate the opportunity to take part in the discussion, as are you. I am not saying whether or not the series is popular or not - I am saying that there is no evidence brought forth here that satisfies WP's requirements for Notability. I'm sorry you find the Guidelines we use "archaic", but that is what we are told as editors to use.  If you need changes to the guidelines, then please go ahead with the discussion on the Talk page for those guidelines. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry about the "vote will do" comment, it just aggravates me that anyone can possibly defer to the Wiki guidelines knowing that an informative, interesting article (for fans of the series) will probably be deleted. In my opinion, there's a time to ignore stale guideline principals and get practical. I'm not saying 'look the other way,' I'm just insinuating that maybe the Wiki guidelines, and what they imply, are not always benevolent to Wikipedia users in general. Do you always do what you're told in real life, as well? Do you not agree that there's a time to break the rules? I'm not arguing in regards to this thread, but in general principal-- it's like you guys worship the rules here. I feel like you're not even considering the implications of this article and its deletion except through the lens of Wikipedia's own beaurocratic stipulations. Have you ever read Kafka's Castle? Jamesowen237 20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, Notability is not popularity, it is source availability, and that doesn't seem to happen here. Internet memes are not notable just because a lot of people view them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP. - This article should be kept; however, it requires significant cleanup. It also would sound more professional and encyclopedic to remove many of the vulgar quotes that take away from the formal tone. More notably in the past couple of months, this video has indeed gained widespread popularity and is becoming a significant underground icon. If detailed articles on other Youtube sensations such as &quot;Numa Numa&quot; and &quot;The Juggernaut Bitch!!&quot; are allowed on Wikipedia, why should this entry be disregarded and deleted? Bonhamfreak48 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problem is WP:A ... note that both Numa Numa and The Juggernaut Bitch!! cite sources, like a New York Times article ... so far, all of the claims of "widespread popularity" are merely unsubstatiated rumors ... if there were any WP:RS citations, we probably would not be having this discussion ... finding and adding some will be the only thing that can save this article from deletion. &mdash; 08:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Juggernaut Bitch!! cites a blog and a false MTV link. The article was deleted and then restored. Currently, it has no actual sources and is not an AfD. Will your efforts to rid this article (as it now stands) be without avail? Jamesowen237 08:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As of now I believe there are no scholarly resources, and, as such, 'finding and adding some' is currently impossible. I understand the article does not, and even cannot, satisfy Wikipedia's various criteria. Personally, and particularly in relation to this article, I do not believe that the Wikipedia guidelines are always, or even essentially, benevolent. As such, I certainly won't delete the article (but I'm sure someone else will). If you've taken an interest in Hodge-Stansson or this particular article, worry not; I've saved an up-to-date copy and will repost as soon as scholarly sources are availible (which, by all estimations, should be soon). As far as omitting expletives, I would definitely opose that. You'll notice that I maintained a scholarly vernacular and tone throughout the article except when quoting Ricky. His vocabulary is crucial to the humor; in fact, it drives it. I believe that these expletives are similarly crucial to any serious discussion of the series. Jamesowen237 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also: Bonhamfreak48, as far as besides your said desire to remove expletives, what "significant cleanup" do you believe is "require[d]" ? Jamesowen237 08:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Delete it now. - Ctbolt 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The above comment/vote by Ctbolt should be discarded. It is childish, unscholarly and not a valid POV. You can't label something "not notable" just because you've never heard of it. Neoelitism 15:27, 14 April 2007 (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.

I think the fact that I found this page whilst searching for a Wikipedia write-up on The Unforgivable series is pretty good evidence that you shouldn't have deleted it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.240.82 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)