Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet Bike Steve

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Bike Steve

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film not in filming or even in production. No IMDB hit. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Check out Simon Pegg's twitter for confirmation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.44.1 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt: Only sources are tweets and images on twitter. No way to finding out if this supposed film has even started filming yet. —Mike Allen Speedy delete per Matt as a blatant hoax and salt it good. —Mike Allen 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pegg has confirmed an appearance on 6 Music on 26 March to discuss Jet Bike Steve. The film could be considered at the development stage. Violentbob (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How does this meet the criteria in WP:NFF? ttonyb (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete:Simon Pegg did verify the planned Jet Bike Steve movie during a 6 Music interview on 26 March 2010, and confirmed some of the cast. Violentbob (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I see no evidence of this interview in the article. ttonyb (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this was made up the day before yesterday, and is quite clearly just an internet meme. It's not really a film, guys. matt (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://twitter.com/bryanthebong/statuses/11090325002 matt (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are going "stop us". This needs to be salted as soon as possible. —Mike Allen 23:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [1] and [2]. — Rankiri (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - All Twitter references cited in the article to the film "under development" are from Simon Pegg's verified Twitter account. As above he appeared on BBC 6 music on the Lauren Laverne Show (10:15am 26th March) to verify the plans, and this show is still available to listen to online if you would like to check.Pjhirst (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Pjhirst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is nothing but a joke, literally, a JOKE. It started from a tweet, see this article. —Mike Allen 07:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~^{(double vote)} This article could be listed as both (or either) a Fictional Film (such as Blue Harvest or Conan The Librarian), or an internet meme (such as Rickrolling), all of which have their own articles. The phenomena was started by Simon Pegg and is therefore notable due to his international profile. Violentbob (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Rick Rolling (etc.) have articles is that they're notable, and have existed for long enough to gather reasonable coverage in third-party sources (WP:GNG). Just because Pegg started it doesn't mean that it's notable – notability isn't inherited. If there's any coverage in reliable sources, it may be worthy of mentioning in Pegg's article – but certainly not yet. matt (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NFT. The subject is a non-notable Twitter hoax/meme that has no coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been covered in several places, such as the BBC, and the website of the UK digital TV channel Dave. Plus it appears on internet meme websites such as knowyourmeme.com Violentbob (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this does not fit the WP:NFT; 'If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia'. This meme has been followed be people arounnd the world, and has been featured in UK national media. Violentbob (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Know Your Meme is not a WP:RS source, and just because the author of the meme happened to mention it on a BBC show[3], it doesn't mean that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that section of the show was dedicated to Jet Bike Steve, and the purpose of the interview was to discuss it, rather than either Pegg or Laverne happening to discuss it. Violentbob (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "a non-notable Twitter hoax" - it's had plenty of notable coverage, and it's from Simon Pegg's verified account on Twitter and direct from his mouth. He has also since created a (again verified it's from Simon Pegg) character on Twitter, and should be treated with as much respect as any comic, book, TV show or film character. By all means correct the article to describe exactly what and who this character is, but to consider deletion now is just plain sad. Pjhirst (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How does this "coverage" meet the criteria in WP:RS? ttonyb (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why don't you go through the 12,000 hits on Google for ("jet bike steve" -wikipedia) and discount them all one by one? Pjhirst

You mean 97 unique hits? I did. — Rankiri (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's even fewer if you use "-flickr -twitpic" etc... matt (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to understand that you can't use Wikipedia to pimp out your supposed work. It is not used for free marketing. Announcing it on twitter isn't going to save this article from being deleted, and hopefully protected from being created in the future. Even IF this film was notable, it wouldn't merit its own article until filming has commence. Admins, do we really have to wait for 7 days for a decision? —Mike Allen 19:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're undoing your own arguement then, as this is listed as a fictional film and internet meme, not an actual film in production. Violentbob (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Simon Pegg with brief mention of the meme there. If the meme is more than just news, then the redirect could be undone to have a meme article. If a film does happen, then the redirect could be undone to have a film article, with the originating meme being mentioned in the production section. Currently, it does not seem like a stand-alone topic. Erik (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for that to happen provided that we could source it with more than a Twitter account (if Know Your Meme isn't regarded as reliable then I don't whether there's any more coverage that is independent of the subject). Whether or not Jet Bike Steve is mentioned in the Simon Pegg article, I think it's a valid redirect – the current article has quite a bit of traffic (2,300 hits on 26 Mar) so redirecting either way may be logical. matt (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems independent and covers it in some detail. Erik (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the site lists the author of this source as a blogger: http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/contact-blogger/joe-barton/. — Rankiri (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is not a personal blog nor a group blog but rather run by AOL-owned Moviefone. WP:RS says, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." This lists the "blog" entries he's written for the website, and they appear journalistic in nature. Erik (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2010 (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.