- 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. W.marsh 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for proposed deletion a few days ago, saying "this looks like somebody's hobby on the internet". It was untagged, so here we are. I can't see any reliable sources, it's a near-orphan, and well, it might be a merge candidate for something if we could source it but as it is, no. So I propose that we delete this article if it isn't sourced and given a bit of that secret encyclopedic ingredient known as "oomph" over the next few days. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge to Fan film. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but does register a fair number of GHits. Clarityfiend 03:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The subject has some notability, but this article needs a serious rewrite to be salvaged first. Rebochan 03:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It got some good coverage in Penny Arcade. I'll see what I can dig up. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A Wikipedia article for a home-made movie? Not meeting WP:NN or WP:FILM. The Sunshine Man 07:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless proper sources demonstrating notability are added Guycalledryan 08:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the following reliable source demonstates notability: [1] (writer is a professional research at MIT's media studies program, as well as a leading game industry professional, so clearly qualifies despite being a blog per WP:V; first commenter is also a professional expert on the game industry with particular expertise in promotion). Also has "about" 120,000 ghits. Over 2 million views on its page at GameTrailer.com, not including the views for the copies of it on youtube, google video and other popular video sharing sites. Seems pretty notable to me. JulesH 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per other delete comments, and redirect to Xerox which was originally known as The Haloid Company. --Metropolitan90 14:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus is keep, would a disambig page solve that issue? -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, we could probably handle that issue with just a hatnote, not even needing a disambig page: For the company formerly known as The Haloid Company, see Xerox.--Metropolitan90 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, we could probably handle that issue with just a hatnote, not even needing a disambig page:
- If the consensus is keep, would a disambig page solve that issue? -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. - Google / YouTube indicates WP:N, but I agree with above that it should be marked for heavy clean-up.
- Delete – Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this seems to be fancruft. All references to Haloid in scholarly journals refer to Xerox; this should be made into a redirect. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Ephemeral fancruft that serves no real purpose, has no notability (youtube and google hits are NOT a basis for that, see WP:BIGNUMBER, and even more importantly, WP:GOOGLEHITS to see why this is absolutely, positively, not a valid reason to keep this article) This is a homemade video, no corporate sponsorship, no publishing requisites, so again, not notable on that count. Also, take note that Notability is not temporary and requires objective evidence, more things that have not been shown for this article's subject. Perhaps some of this information may be adequately merged into a larger article such as a list of internet memes in general or some such thing, but until a demonstrated and concrete (that is long term) notability is established, this needs to be scuttled. Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a qualifier either. Just because youtube video xyz or fanfiction abcexists doesn't mean this should. In fact, if their notability is as questionable as this one, using that argument will probably result in their deletion as well.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:41, 6 June 2007 (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.