Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday Bash (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 Userfied to User talk:Horrorfan80/sandbox (Birthday Bash). I've left the redlinks in the event that userfication is succesful in developing the article. brenneman 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Bash[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The first AFD is here. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability WP:NF. JamesBurns (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ nothing has changed since the last AfD except for a name change as its release nears. No reason to renominate 7 months later simply because a name has changed, as the arguments toward keep are the same now as then and notability is NOT temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not nominate it because it changed names and I would never do it for that reason. My nomination said I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. The last AFD didn't go by any guidelines so I don't see what you mean by that. I did multiple searches for both names and I came up with nothing that shows notability. Editors are allowed to nominate articles for deletion after several months. Concensus can change. Schuym1 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last AFD was withdrawn because of lack of consensus, not to keep. Of the 7 arguments for keep/delete one of the keep arguments held water, the other 4 were:

We kept Snakes on a Plane
Movie actually exists and is verifyable (the comment about Pirates of the Carribean III was unfounded as it would have received substantial coverage long before it was made, thereby passing the general notability guidelines).
please it exist and is verifiable too.
the movie was in post production as of February (the release date is irrelivent if it doesn't pass film guidlines or general notability guidelines).

The one argument that was reasonable references a Fangoria article establishing notability, but it is no longer present. --kelapstick (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent note. Sometimes sources that once were available disappear. The reasonable atrgument supported by that now-gone reference still applies, even though that source can no longer be found. That's why WP:NTEMP is around... to prevent deletions simply because once valid sources are no longer available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That guideline has nothing to do with one reliable source being missing. Schuym1 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are both right on this one, the guideline states that the subject does not have to receive "continual coverage" (i.e. there doesn't have to be an article written about it every year, and even if no one remembers the movie 10 years from now it was notable at one time) and doesn't have anything to do with references that are unavailable anymore, however MQS makes a valid point that even though the references is not available online anymore, it was still a valid reference at one point (I am sure that must be a part of some other policy, but it would be nice if someone had a hard copy of the magazine to cite from). My arguement below is still that it probably was never valid to establish notability--kelapstick (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Fangoria article was 2-3 years before the film was actually produced, which means that it was likely (I admit I am speculating here) an interview with Reuben Rox about his "upcoming movie" (which didn't upcome for over 2 years), which would not classify as 3rd party coverage and therefore couldn't have been used to establish notability. It is clear that the article was not reviewing the film (which would have made it pass WP:NF) as it hadn't been made yet. Having said that, I think that it will pass WP:NF in the future and support Mr. Schmidt's proposition to Userfy it as to not lose the content and it can be improved.

Userfy ~~Delete~~ as there is no notability along the notability guidelines for films yet.--kelapstick (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy article to User:Mattdvdtv/sandbox or User:Horrorfan80/sandbox so it may continue to be improved. A difficulty in finding sources is that this film has had several false starts over the 3 years the article has been on Wiki. Originally to be released as Chubby Killer the film met production problems and filming was halted. Production began again with a name change to Birthday Bash and online trailers use some of the originally shot footage from 2006 and 2007. Further, its writer/director has plans to release it to Europe under the name Return of the Chubbby Killer (of course, how could he "return" is he was never released). These three different titles toward the same film make searching for sources difficult at best. However, I was able to find an in-depth interview of the writer/director and used it to source certain information within the article. However, and with regard to the previous AfD, there has been no NEW information made available outside the blogs and fansites. I ask the closing Admin to WP:USERFY this to its major contributor/author so it may continue to be worked on as sources become available and release nears. Allow it a return without prejudice. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I find this the most logical solution. In an 2008 interview Rueben Rox states that production began in the fall of 2005 and that it will finally be released this year (2008). The current status is post production. At this time there are no reliable third party references, it fails WP:NF and Wikipedia is still no crystal ball. Userfying seems the best solution because circumstances may change.—Sandahl (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (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.