Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 1 Second Film

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 keep (non-admin closure). Chetblong^Talk_Sign 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 Second Film

Delete This project is over. IMDb page is 404 error[1]. Chip213132 (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "project is over" is not a valid argument; we don't delete things because they are over (obviously...). Everyking (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite clearly notable. Nom's only edits are for this deletion - disruptive? Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Usually I expect a movie to have an IMDb entry before it is deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article. However, this movie formerly had an IMDb entry but was suspended due to long delays before completion and lack of press coverage of the production. [2] I am not sure that the movie should be disqualified from Wikipedia because it lost its IMDb page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Peloponnesian War is over, too, but we still have an article for it. And in this case, IMDB is not necessarily the proper venue to find information. This is a charity project that happens to have a film attached (as a publicity stunt); it is not a film that happens to have a charity attached. The charity drive is notable, the article has some references...I see no reason to delete. Ig8887 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, contains sufficient sources to assert notability, regardless of the fact that there's no IMDb link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is akin to bringing a person's article to AfD because they died. The project is over? and....what? that's not a good enough reason to bring an article to afd. Here's what Google news brought up which has articles about the project in The Boston Globe and USA Today. Doc Strange (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with this comment: If the Internet as we know it existed decades ago, I swear we (and IMDb) would still have a page on Richard Williams' Arabian Knight. That film, too, took ages to complete! (I even saw it listed in Bruno Edera's Full Length Animated Feature Films from 1977, which I received via library loan.) Same thing with Delgo, now in its 10th year. No matter how many reliables, we can never tell when a notable project will come out. After all, it's all in the hands of the industry. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If all the people listed in the 'Celebrity Producers' section really were involved in this film (and it seems they were), then it is clearly notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2008 (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.