Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hack Movies

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. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hack Movies[edit]

Hack Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy removed by admin (and a PROD will likely be contested). I do not believe this article has any bona fide WP:RS indicating encyclopedic notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure why the lengthy message I had written here is now gone. I'm not really sure why admins and content editors here on this site continue to remove my content just because they believe this article to be invalid due to the content. The matter should not be about content but about notoriety just as the guidelines state and instead I am being attacked and ignored. I do not appreciate it.

Onto what I had written before...If you will see many of the new references I have given, you will see the many interviews and media talk that has been given to the director and other members of this production company, its cast, and crew. You will also see the references to the company and recent titles' IMDbPro Starmeter. This is disregarded by many but only the ignorant who do not understand how it works and why it is in place. The Starmeter is a reference of the popularity of a given title, company, or person on IMDb. To consecutively have a number below 10,000 is rather significant. To have the numbers where they are currently for Hack Movies and the title CockHammer is profound. It shows that there is major buzz throughout the planet for this entitys because in order for the Starmeter to improve the title, person, or company must be physically searched through the database search function (it doesn't count for a hyperlink for that entity to be simply clicked on).Erkman27 (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2009 (CST)

  • I appreciate the work you've done in adding citations to the article, but they are not reliable sources from Wikipedia's point of view. Especially IMDB. IMDB is user-generated and cannot be used as reference in this way. As for the other references, none of appear to me to be WP:RS. To quote the guideline: "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable." When Hack Movies begins to generate significant coverage in mainstream media or film industry trades -- say, a Variety (magazine) story or something of that ilk -- then you'd have a case. At least, that's my opinion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – IMDbPro Starmeter falls under WP:ELNO (Links normally to be avoided) because it requires a paid registration. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would disagree with Erkman27, most of the sources are movie reviews, which couldn't feasibly establish notability for the movie and definitely not for the company who created it. Some of the links to interviews with the head of the company are dead ends and the other interviews are about the man himself and his work, not the company. There might be enough to establish the notability of Kevin Strange here but the company needs some reliable sources reporting on it before it will meet WP:N. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Keep Okay, notability is marginal, but this article covers several movies, the filmakers and actors involved. They've had substantial write ups including one by We Are Movie Geeks [1]. After watching the trailer, I can only conclude that it is very important to the sum of all human knowlege that this subject is included. Their latest movie looks kind of awesome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishes notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, seems like another wannabe filmmaker/actor who can not make it on talent so they artificially try to shortcut to notability/fame and advert by listing on Wiki. The sources listed are not reliable, they boil down to imdb, blogs and reviews- none of which are RS.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, let's try not to be too harsh, remember these are real people with feelings. His work isn't my cup of tea, either, but maybe he'll be the next John Waters, someday. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Low-budget" tends to imply "not yet notable", unless legitimate high-profile awards and/or reviews can be supplied. DS (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a verified celebrity on TruthTweet (site that verifies celebrity Twitter users) I don't know if that counts for this page but I thought I'd throw it in there. Also, Hack is officially endorsed by Troma founder and all-around crazy guy Lloyd Kaufman. Lloyd Kaufman intro to Dream Reaper User:Erkman27 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2009 (CST)
    • I'd be happy to be proven wrong, however, neither YouTube nor Twitter is generally acceptable as a reliable source, here in Wikipedia, per WP:TWITTER. Keep in mind that even if Hack Movies is deleted, it doesn't mean that the article couldn't be re-created at a later date, when you get more mainstream press. I would however strongly discourage you from doing so yourself, per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Focus on your work; let someone who's genuinely neutral create the article, in due time. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is exactly what I was talking about before. You shouldn't be paying attention to the fact that the content happens to be on Twitter or YouTube. You should be paying attention to the content itself and what it represents. Both Lloyd Kaufman and Troma Entertainment are notable, verified articles here on Wiki and they have both endorsed Hack Movies. Concerning the Twitter thing, you have failed to do your research on Truth Tweet to see how it works and why it's important (the service should actually have its own article as it was the first of its kind to do what it does and has a database larger than similar service Valebrity).Erkman27 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2009 (CST)
        • Comment – Sounds like User:Erkman27 (Erik A. Williams) has violated Wikipedia:Conflict of interest … that makes the article little more than blatant vanispamcruftisement … regarding Twitter, you really need to read about Self-published sources (online and paper). — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm seriously tired of the blatent bs from all these people who are obviously too close-minded to see past the content and do their research to see the merit of the links and references I've provided which should more than qualify the company and the movie title for Wiki articles. Concerning violating VSCA, I was simply trying to provide further links to support the notability of the Hack Movies page. If Tom Hanks, Britney Spears, or Steve Jobs was updating an article, they would not be called out for violating VSCA. It the same bs IMDB pulls when adding a new title. It seems Wiki admins and mods hold the same sort of discrimination they do when it comes to adding content. If someone isn't already a "name" (as IMDB calls it) or "notable" (as you call it) or simply "in" with one of the content editors or admins, our information is not eligible to be included. It is the same deal with Twitter (Facebook, YouTube, etc). If it was a verified page, say Miley Cyrus or Shaquille O'Neal or whatever, it wouldn't be questioned. But since I'm not important, the same discriminatory POV's come into play. That's pretty ridiculous to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have added a link to Fangoria's release of the CockHammer trailer. I don't suppose you would actually consider Fangoria a non-reliable source since they have been the leading name in horror for over thirty years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk• contribs) 06:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doesn't change my vote. This trailer is on the "independent sister site Gorezone" which doesn't appear notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, though you'll likely create one now. Having a online trailer on a start-up website still does not equal encyclopedic notability for the film or least of all, Hack Movies.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess what I should have called Gorezone is "Fangoria's sister site FOR INDIES," instead of independent site. Gorezone and Fangoria are one just like IMDB and Amazon are one. In other words, the trailer was officially and exclusively released by Fangoria themselves. Again, as I keep saying to everyone here, DO YOUR RESEARCH.
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/Hack_Movies&oldid=1069813458"