Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergeant Cheerleader (2nd nomination)

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 delete. BJTalk 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Cheerleader

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sergeant Cheerleader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a procedural AFD. Article went through a previous AFD as being non-notable (see WP:MOVIE), but was speedied by closing admin as being promotional. Article was recreated days after. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sergeant Cheerleader has it's own spot on the Internet Movie Database and a simple google search reveals multiple newspaper articles about the film. Clearly this film should have a spot on Wikipedia, just like any other legitimate film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themensaguy2001 (talk • contribs) 17:04, December 13, 2008
  • Comment Since your only contributions have been to this AFD and to the article in question, I'm calling this an {{SPA}}, and an apparent WP:COI. Also, given that the original article was created by a user named Sgtcheer (talk · contribs · block log), I also raise my concerns over WP:MEAT, given this being a group project. BUT, anyways, to address the claim that there is an article on IMDB, need we remind the commenter that anyone can add a movie to IMDB, and a presence there does not equal WP:RS? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of notability. Zero references.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment even with the additional links and references, this film is still not notable and the article should be deleted. It still lacks significant coverage. An IMDB entry, an article in a campus newspaper (COI aside) and a photo in the local newspaper are not significant.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE IT: If the Internet Movie Database is not notable, then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themensaguy2001 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB does not confer notability. It might act to confirme non-contentios facts, but notability must be otherwise established. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is an all-inclusive database that aims for completeness. Wikipedia isn't. That's why we need other sources, too. JulesH (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete In good faith, I have ignored possible Socks and SPAS and took the article under my wing. It "looks" much better since I have given the article a major face-lift, cleaning it up and sourcing perf film MOS, removing hyperbole and POV.... HOWEVER, the only found sources are two College of William and Mary papers... The "Flat Hat News" and "The Virginia Informer" (where the film's producer Matt Pinsker is a staff writer). COI? No doubt. Reliable? Maybe. Notable? Only at the college. Sorry. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I write only to say that the publication has been covered in many regional and state papers, not just the local William and Mary papers. I'm pretty sure that this article does violate Wikipedia policy and should be deleted, but I'm frustrated that individuals have called the Daily Press and the Williamsburg/Yorktown Daily College of William and Mary papers, which they are not. OK to vote against it, but frustrating that some users wouldn't realize that. -- 128.239.47.177 (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects to our anonymous IP... I called ONLY "The Flat Head News" and "The Virginia Informer" papers of the College of William and Mary, because that's what their own sites say they are. They show a notability on campus, but not in the world... and there is the "minor" problem with Pinsker himself being a staff writer for the Virginia Informer, which creates a bit of COI problem in that source. I absolutely loved the coverage given by the Williamsburg/Yorktown Daily and NEVER called it a college paper... heck, I was the one added it within the article as a proper reference... but that made only one decent source independent of the subject. I also the one who added the Daily Press source to "additional reading". It was only a picture and a caption, but confirmed principle filming... but you yourself moved in into the article as a refeence. If you can find reliable sources beyond what I already found, please share them by all means. Show me the "many regional and state papers" (outside of William and Mary) of which you speak and I'll gladly add them to the article and revise my opinion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 17 December 2008 (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/Sergeant_Cheerleader_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138352466"