Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Spit on Your Rave

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Spit on Your Rave[edit]

I Spit on Your Rave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion per WP:MOVIE. Result of checking notability is failed. Vanquisher.UA(talk) 02:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 17:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/incubate/potential merge of some information to The Big Chill (music festival). I can't find where there's any true in-depth coverage of this. I can find plenty of mention of it in relation to the music festival and the record breaking, but not much else. If not for the 2012 mention that this might become a weekly series, I'd say that this was just a film that stalled and died before it was ever truly completed. I do want to mention that this has been optioned but not formally picked up as of yet, so this isn't a guarantee. However that said, there's enough here to justify an incubation or userfication if anyone wants to go that route. There might be a slight justification as well to make a small subsection in the main article for the festival for the record breaking attempt and mention this film there, then redirect to that section. The record breaking seems to have been set up specifically for this film, ([1]) so it'd be reasonable enough I think to mention this at that article. There's enough coverage of the actual gathering in relation to the movie to where I think this would be justified. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the requisites of WP:NFF. Principal filming has completed and the project has received coverage.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] We can reasonable allow continued expansion and development of this article. Apparently some scenes were done in 2009 and yes, enough zombies were gathered to became an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records for the "Most Amount of Zombies Captured on Camera".[9] Further, while the film was supposed to release in 2010, interest in the film has caused it to be re-developed into a weekly zombie television series.[10] No matter where else we might mention this film, it will take but a bit of work to change the focus of being about the completed film into one about the resulting television series... after all, Wikipedia IS a work in progress. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have requisites of WP:NFF? Project was abandoned in 2009 and seems the main goal of this project is get record in Guinness Book only. Moreover, former official site is dead strongly after end of The Big Chill 2009. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read perfect submission by Tokyogirl79. Did you see that film or you have that film? ABANDONED Project and per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL should be deleted! Useful info (about notability of zombie event inside The Big Chill 2009) included in proper wiki-pages by Tokyogirl79 (Thanks). --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 19:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but what you forget to address is that the completed film is becoming a episodic television series... and THAT development makes the "failure to be released" even more notable under guideline and policy. As we have sourcability that the project received coverage and was completed, CBALL is not applicable. As for for your emboldened "abandoned", as it is be turned into a TV series, that claim is invalid as well. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct is "Maybe turned into a TV series" (because it's statement from autumn 2012 News, not from 2013) and per last WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL IS applicable. Moreover, wiki-article I Spit on Your Rave is about film not TV-series. About COMPLETING: "that the project received coverage and was completed". Please give us any fact about this (links to stream, VHS, Video-CD, DVD, BD, etc. will be appreciable). --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 20:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the 2009 article is about the film and makes no mention of later sourcable plans from 2012 for development as a television series. THAT might be seen as a reason to allow it to remain and be changed to take into account the news since 2009 OR for creation of a new article to be created about the series if/when it happens. In consideration of independent coverage from 2009-2012 under WP:NTEMP and WP:PRESERVE I'd be okay with redirect and partial merge to the film's star Noel Fielding. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you have recent news about TV-series? Now is 2013, not 2009 or 2012, etc.!! Mentioned fact (about announcing of TV-series) cannot be using as argument for KEEP this DEAD and UNCOMPLETED FILM project. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 23:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't miss. But... Who is Noel Fielding (his role)? Are you remember Lloyd Kaufman? So if Douggie-Dou acted in that film then film must be notable due to Douggie-Dou? Please, post any reliable news from December 2012. Also, Independent Coverage is outdated. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are agree with redirect and partial merge than type that. KEEP is not your truly opinion. Sorry, I'm laugh ;-) No more messages in that local thread will be posted from me. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 00:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)
  • Perhaps you might re-read the very first line of the article you wish deleted. Actor/comedian Noel Fielding is/was the star. His blue-linked name will lead you to the Wikipedia article on him and explain just who he is. His role, just as is found in the plot section of the article you wish deleted and in sources found through a brief search,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] is/was King of the Zombies (atypically fast-moving and coherent) and organizer of a music festival to keep the zombies entertained after all humans-as-food had been exhausted. As still-exiting coverage is in relationship to and confirms his role in the film, redirecting to the actor and his career is sensible no matter the age of the sources. "Outdated" is NOT a criteria for determining what constitutes a reliable source for coverage from even 2009 or 2010, just so long as readers can access the sources for themselves. The idea of Wikipedia is to serve its readers. Had it existed, I would have been suggesting for a redirect to an article on Chris Boyle (director). As for your WP:WAX examples, I have found nothing on an actor or character named Douggie-Dou and I found nothing indicating Lloyd Kaufman having any part of this project. And please... I am not asserting a WP:INHERITED situation, and am simply offering a place where it makes sense per policy and guideline to speak of the topic of this zombie film if it is no longer seen as meriting a separate article. Special note: You might wish to re-read the third paragraph of WP:NFF. Even an incomplete, unreleased, or failed film project could still be determined as notable enough for an article if it has the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Per applicable guideline, a keep is still my first option. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe... sometimes I'll reading all mentioned things. But comedian (Noel Fielding) and as you say King of the Zombies (that info from photo or from reliable sources except old ones? Maybe somebody even seen ending titles? ;-) ) isn't the reason for KEEP this page. And this movie fails any checks per WP:NFF, especially for third paragraph due to existence (in past) Official Site [25] and after that we have broken requirement too ("films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself"). But we have info without their production itself! --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 01:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not require onscreen credits. Fielding's role is established and confirmed by multiple reliable independent sources, and as long as a source is independent and reliable, its age does not matter. As for this article remaining... "should generally not have" does not mean "may NEVER have". Guideline encourages the use of common sense and occasion exceptions are allowed. I am reminded of a similar case from 2007 for Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse, another released non-film promotion which received a great deal of coverage and was allowed, after much discussion and an application of common sense, to have its own article based upon it meeting our basic notability guide. As an relevant example, it became the basis six-years-later for a 2013 feature film (and just as this one may itself later become an episodic television series, we do not demand immediacy). That ISOYR did not become a film as its production company originally wished does not dismiss or diminish the topic having received coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Once we have established the existence of a great deal of more-than-trivial coverage, we do not expect nor demand film topics remain forever in the headlines. This may be allowed to remain and receive continued growth and editorial attention under WP:N or even under WP:EVENT. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your words it does not matter. Subject is article about FILM (MOVIE)! Title have no connection to any TV-series, event, etc. Film is ABANDONED! NOTABLE event included in proper wiki-page. So we have deal with 'HIGHLY NO NOTABLE ARTICLE! --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 14:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently you have not recently looked, and your use of emboldened caps for emphasis notwithstanding, but the "topic" of the now well-sourced article is about a trailer released to promote a proposed film by that title and about how and where it was filmed and how a record was broken during its filming and how it was hoped to be released three years ago and how it is now being redeveloped for a television series. As for notability, I invite you to re-read WP:N and its WP:GNG. Also pertinent is the third paragraph of WP:NFF which explians that even a film-not-released may still be a considered notable topic through coverage. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I_Spit_on_Your_Rave&oldid=1136111379"