Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catme 06

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catme 06[edit]

The article says "The Catme movement was created and announced on March the 19th, 2006 over the Internet, by three friends who were bored on a Sunday afternoon." I assume that refers to Wikipedia. Good old Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Delete. Melchoir 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created in response to press release sent out by parties involved. I know them. It's legit.
I can see how this would be considered on the gray area of acceptable use policy, but I maintain that it fits.
If any "movement" were chronicled the day it was born, would it still be superfluous?
The people involved have a sense of humor, but it is not a joke, they put their actual filmmaking beliefs in their manifesto. And between the three of them, they have actual film credits, books on filmmaking in stores, reviews in Variety, Film Threat, etc.

Regarding "by three friends who were bored on a Sunday afternoon", The Dogme 95 movement was created exactly the same way.

Just my six cents, Eliza. —This unsigned comment was added by ElizaBarrington (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 March 2006.
  • Delete per nom, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this ever extends beyond these three it might become notable. It's not now. Fan1967 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eliza, under our verifiability policy, we require sources such as newspapers, magazines and film journals to write about this before we can have an article on it. If it becomes verifiable under our policies, especially with coverage in multiple reliable sources then I would welcome an article on this movement. At the moment, it doesn't meet our standards. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


-- Good point, Fan1967. --Eliza. ElizaBarrington

  • Delete per nom... and as for the "created today" part, WP:CHILL applies. Verifiability and notability first, then inclusion. --Kinu t/c 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. The problem is not how long it took to create this, or how many people. One person might conceivably create something notable in a short time, which could lead to a lot of publications by reputable sources. But here notability is not established, it fails the Google test, and worst of all it also appears to be unverifiable. The external link in the article redirects through a meta http-equiv="refresh" to Jeff and Genevieve's Photos, which don't seem that notable either, and whose connection to Catme 06 I am unable to grasp. LambiamTalk 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the catme06.com domain is brand new, from GoDaddy; the redirect may have been left over from the previous renter of the IP. It's been fixed now, and basically matches the article. Also, it appears that one of the "three friends" who thought this up is, in fact, a cat. At least, there is a Julie Peasley whose website ([1]) includes pictures with her cat, Squeaky McGee [2]. This whole thing is starting to look more like a hoax. Fan1967 03:46, 20 March 2006 (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/Catme_06&oldid=1137683859"