This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasdelete. Woohookitty 08:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this for another round since it didn't get much exposure. Dmcdevit·t 19:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Do iFilm's merit an article?? --Doc (?) 00:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC) strong keep obviously, sorry I missed it --Doc (?) 07:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. But this particular article can't seem to make up its mind if it's an essay on the Internet film genre or Apocalypse Pooh. Very weak keep but only if rewritten to be about the film and remove POV. Someone else has no doubt written an article on the genre. 23skidoo 01:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any claim to notability here, and the article is a mess. Unless someone can convince me that this movie a) has been viewed by a substantial number of people, b) has a great deal of artistic merit and has been cited in reputable outside sources and is therefore worth cleaning up, I'm voting delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Such a film is not likely to show up on IMDb. We voters should NOT burdened with proving why it is not notable -- the author should be burdened to prove that it is. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's notable. Questions for discussion: How can a bootleg film be documented as even existing, beyond a sub-cult of insiders? What are the standards for documenting their existance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Klenk (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 August 2005
• Some of us do bother to do some research. Yes, the movie is on imdb. It's a very early example of a mass circulation home movie of a type that has become so easy to make and circulate that we forget how different 1987 was. This was a historic movie of its genre. Keep --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've substantially cleaned up the article along the lines suggested by User:23skidoo. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Film Threat publisher Chris Gore introduced a rare showing at the Atlanta Film and Video and Film Festival in 1997 with the words: "For all you cry-baby, whiny filmmakers who complain that you don't have any money to make your film, well fuck you, this film cost six bucks!"' Why would we not describe this movie as encyclopedic? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to personally thank Tony Sidaway for cleaning up the article that I intially wrote up, as messed up as it was, it was hindered purly by my uncertainty in what background came with Apoaclypse Now, characters names, not basic plot, and can only apologise for including personal opinion in the original feture, thanks to Sidaway, the short is now roughly close to what I wanted it to be, and I had hoped to return to polish it off myself armed with more research, the initial article was to ensure it was THERE when I got around to it-- Zarius]User talk: Zarius|^TALK]]00:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 07:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are far worse articles on WP, on far less notable topics. I for one was hitherto unaware of this "genre". Shantavira 08:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable - Tεxτurε 15:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a "keep" vote added here by an anon user but signed as if by Zarius using ~~~~. Closing admin: - please verify with Zarius if this was his/her vote if Zarius has not responded her by that time. The situation appeared suspicious to me since a user would not accidentally vote while not logged in but remember to fake a ~~~~. I apologize to Zarius if I have acted incorrectly. - Tεxτurε 14:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, naturally...as this kind of genre to the less ignorant IS noticable and resourcful in various projects covering all aspects of animation, some bootleggers behind these projects went on to write for The Simpsons and Family GuZarius]User talk: Zarius|^TALK]]00:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC
  • This is the anon vote in Zarius' name. His/her user page indicates that Zarius is a new user and I am less certain of my suspicions. I hope Zarius can confirm and accept my apologies if I have intervened incorrectly. - Tεxτurε 14:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually he's had that account for over two years but seldom seems to use it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main concern is exactly that. (Although the small number of registered edits may still indicate a new user and the user page still indicates this.) A smart disruptive anon can look for an empty house and start sending out mail from it. Faking the ~~~~ sig and timestamp seemed odd. - Tεxτurε 15:22, 1 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.