Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S3 Films
- 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of this film studio's projects are listed on IMDB. This is a vanity article, written by one of the founders of this outfit. eae 08:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I had typed here first (I erased my pervious entry on this page) was a reason why this page shouldn't be deleted. I don't really care though. Just delete it if you want. I mean, it's pretty relevant, if these guys get any bigger then they'll be as important to Alvin as Nolan Ryan once was (he moved apparently). Also, just because they're not listed on IMDB doesn't mean they're not important or anything, just go watch Student Film: The Movie on video.google.com and you'll see. OtakupunkX 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When these guys (which includes OtakupunkX, who founded the studio and created the article) get any bigger, someone else will notice and write an article. As it stands, there is nothing about S3 Films that warrants a Wikipedia article. Also, IMDB is considered the basic way of checking whether a film is notable. eae 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if somebody else wrote the article and something by S3 Films popped up on IMDB, would it be considered notable then? There are a lot of movies that aren't on IMDB, like, say, anything by X-Strike Studios. IMDB mainly just shows movies that got a commercial release somewhere. Nothing by S3 Films has gotten a commercial release because they release everything for free online via video.google.com, Google's video hosting service.OtakupunkX 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When someone unaffiliated with the studio writes an article, that article will be notable by definition. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability. I believe the Definition section is relevant to the S3 Films article. eae 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference whether someone affiliated with the studio or not writes the article? Chances are someone in the studio will have a hand in the article anyway to make sure the information's not totally bogus. OtakupunkX 14:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that articles written by the subject of that article himself do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines about notability or neutral point of view. eae 19:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This "studio" founded by an eighth grader because he was bored (as the article explains) is not notable enough. Google turns up no non-mirror hits. --Thunk 00:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting in search of participation. -Splashtalk 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No Wikipedia-style verification here. Ziggurat 01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry kid, but the film club you and your buddies got together just isn't wikipedia material. When you've done something notable, then you get an article. Night Gyr 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable, non-notable. If they start to make good enough films that they are covered in the media or win awards, then maybe at that point in time they'll need an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and has more "room" for article, that doesn't mean we don't have guidelines or policies about what warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. Peyna 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, vanity --Mecanismo | Talk 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's not much to say about a studio that instead of worrying about piracy or labor disputes has problems like "To this day, the two short films are still stored on the hard drive of a broken computer at Nabours's house, but there are plans to release the titles online at a later date." Ruby 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —rodii 04:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity. *drew 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NFT. Stifle 09:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:36, 26 January 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.