Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Traveller Films (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 of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Traveller Films[edit]

Article was previously deleted March 29, with a uncontested consensus to delete - details here. New article was marked (prod), but quickly removed by another editor (who appears to be using multiple accounts, all only editing this article). Recommend Speedy Delete and possible page protect this time, as article is blatant self-promotion and hype for a non-notable film and individual. MikeWazowski 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - page protection may be necessary. Another one edit user Zeropolis79 has stated on the talk page for this AfD that "If this page gets deleted, then I'll reopen it" - we may need to do a CheckUser on him along with Solaris-06, Davrosthegreat, Sci-fi fan, Hepburnsprings, and 203.220.120.85 - I think we've got some serious sockpuppeting going on here, as all have only made edits related to The Traveller Films. MikeWazowski 06:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and past discussion. Protect if that is necessary. Wickethewok 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What have you got against this article Mike? The international coverage the said films have received proves that they are notable and are a valid addition to Wikipedia. If fan films are accepted then I really don't understand why an independent series can't have a home here. You seem to be enjoying your job far too much. I see know valid reason for this article to be deleted. Hepburnsprings 13:19, 1 April 2006
  • Comment - Hepburnsprings' only edits are on this page and the talk pages of (to date) the two people to vote delete so far. Just for the record. MikeWazowski 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there is no point in doing a CheckUser on me...

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although once these films are finished and released, they may be worthy of this much information. Sethimothy 00:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I did some searches of the principals behind this and found lots of hits on their own websites, fansites, message board postings. I am not convinced that its notable at this point, but Ill be open to it given some credible evidence.
  • Delete - even taking the article at face value it is difficult to find notability at this stage. If more comes of these films, the article can be recreated. Metamagician3000 01:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I remember this one the last time it was up from AfD. At the time I was inclined to a weak delete, but on further consideration decided to remain neutral. This time around, it looks like the editor has taken great pains to demonstrate on the entry as to why it's notable. I figure there are way worse articles than this one and am willing to let this have another chance. Fluit 01:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For God's sake, they couldn't even manage to get an entry into IMDB. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn film, no IMDB page, per nom. --Terence Ong 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes the WP:KIT test. The Traveller Films is more notable than Nidorino or any other random Pokémon, so if Nidorino gets its own page, The Traveller Films can have a page. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 09:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not an argument, that's an assertion -- one, given the insane popularity of Pokémon, I believe to be flatly untrue. Besides, we're not voting on Pokémon anything, so it's immaterial. --Calton | Talk 05:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lonesomedovechocolate. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom if not speedy for recreated content. One screening of one 28-minute fanfilm? Not notable. Don't let the prevalence of Pokecruft lower the bar for everything else. · rodii · 02:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, possibly speedy as repost ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and {{deletedpage}} when done. Stifle (talk) 23:30, 11 April 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/The_Traveller_Films_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138858547"