Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit-Boy

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fit-Boy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film which fails general notability and WP:NFILMS. No sources, an external link to IMDb which doesn't implies notability. And IMDb is not a reliable source as well. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I found this [1] which isn't much at atall, Barely any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michaels sourcing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment to Davey2010: I found three you did not, and am still looking. The one in Film Threat is the best of those found so far. To Jim Carter: While still "weak", it is looking somewhat better and is no longer "unsourced". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: - The only results I got was quite a few gyms, twitter crap and boys clothing and odd yahoo questions.... So I'm extremely surprised you found some!, Thanks for your improvements :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Good work! I found nothing more than few odd yahoo questions when I searched (already mentioned by Dave). But still I'm not totally convinced, half of the article is not yet referenced. I encourage you to find some more sources so that I can withdraw. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carter: Since the film can be watched for free, cast and production crew can be sourced directly to the film itself. And so while being listed there does nothing for notability, IMDB is generally acceptable for released films.... most specially when the entire film has been posted by production so it can be watched by anyone.

What else do you think needs sourcing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MichaelQSchmidt, but I doubt it can't be considered as a independent source. On the other hand the lack of significant coverage is still alarming. As you can see, after digging so much you came across only 4 sources. :-/ Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carter: Check WP:SELFSOURCE. Yes a film is not independent of itself but it is one of those instances where a primary sources speaking about itself is allowed per MOS:FILM. As a coordinator of project film, I can assure you of this. The film as a primary sources does not count toward notability, no.... but it is allowed as WP:V. As for sources for a no-budget indie film that never saw the inside of a theater, I will do more checking in some hours. But will for now remind that WP:SIGCOV defines that in determining notability, a source must give us more-than-trivial commentary or analysis... it does not state that "multiple" means dozens, but definitely "multiple" sources mean more than one... so three just qualifies. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thanks MichaelQSchmidt. I understand. Determining notability of a film is not a easy work. Okay I'm willing to withdraw. Now, Davey2010 what do you think?? Speedy Keep #1 will work only if other participants also support keep. An afd can't be closed as withdrawn if other participants don't change their mind to keep. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you both - Determining notability is very hard, Anyway I've voted Keep now :) (Apologies for not replying sooner -decided on mowing the garden before it belts it down!). –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Withdraw this nomination per the improvements made by Michael. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:11, 6 September 2014 (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.