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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Bullet in the Arse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Already deleted once. Somebody's weekend project. Chris (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I was originaly putting it up here. I thought it was a hoax, but it's someones project? Wow... Yowuza ZX Wolfie 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' I assumed it was fake because the way it was sort of written. Yowuza ZX Wolfie 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely not a hoax, and closer to inclusion than I was expecting (it appears to have actually screened at a festival). But, other than a sentence on AICN, nobody has actually written about it. So, no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, no article. gnfnrf (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because of some coverage in reliable third party sources including [1] and[2], and because of the multiple awards it won at a film festival which can be seen here [3]. --Banime (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to be working on wikifying this and adding new references to see if I can change anyone's mind. --Banime (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  To add to above, I've improved the intro a bit and referenced it. It has screened at two film festivals (Sitges and Melbourne Underground) and won multiple awards at one of them (Melbourne Underground). --Banime (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails to meet any WP:MOVIE criteria for notability. Small awards for cinematography, sound and "Most Gratuitous Violence" at one fairly insignificant film festival don't make the grade. Most of the writing appears unsupported by citations or independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Strong Keep Per sources found and improvements made. It has won awards and gotten coverage... but the article is longer than the film. Can anything be saved? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been looking into it, the body is quite a mess. I tried to improve the intro a bit. Maybe at worse we could delete the body and keep it as a stub, but I'd hate to delete someone's hard work without reading through it and trying to salvage what I can into an article. If anyone has any ideas let me know or please go ahead and do them. --Banime (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. I spent a lot of time trying trimming the peacock and pov out of the artilce in an attempt tp make it encyclopedic. It does look somewhat better. But my search for sources was gloriously unsuccessful. No doubt it went to MUFF and won awards, but I cannot find anything to solidify a notability... and I did try. With regrets... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Where is the coverage? There are only three links given: [4] is self-submitted info by the filmmakers (see the submit your film button at the website), [5] is a webpage created by the filmmakers, and [6] is a one-sentence blurb also submitted by the filmmakers. There is no independent WP:RS coverage. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well, the article indicates the film was part of the 2003 Sitges Film Festival, but the festival does not include it among that year's titles. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going by the source that said it was, I'll double check and see if I can find anymore about that. --Banime (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I've found this [7] and this [8] that also said it was in the 2003 Sitges. But I can't find it from anywhere else, or on the Sitges site. Is there another possible place that Sitges could keep its archived movies? Maybe they played it there but it wasn't up for an award, or something similar. Again I'll need to look more into it. --Banime (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A Bullet in the Arse was in Sitges 2003. It most definitely did screen in Sitges in 2003. It was in the Brigadoon section. I have a scan of the appropriate page from the Sitges 2003 book. Unfortunately it is right next to the spine, so it is not perfect, but it is legible, and surely that is all it needs to be in order to be proof? Where do I send it? Aside from that, extra references have now been added. How much is enough? ABITA is also on the Internet Movie DataBase, is this not sufficient proof on its validity? BumMcFluff (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I believe you but do you have anything you can point us to that shows it? --Banime (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stiges Film Festival 2003 (French) and Film description at festival (in English), with links to other festivals it was in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My bad. Messed up a translation. I did find the 2003 listings for "Sitges" and "Brigadoon", but ABITA was not listed. Have however fornd other soureces and currently working on cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There seems to be a misunderstanding here. No one contests the existence of the film. However, simply being made and screened does not confer notability. Schimdt and Banime suggest the film is notable because there has been coverage -- but, as yet, no actual coverage has been referenced. As stated under Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and WP:GNG, sites like IMDb, Screen Australia, press releases, blogs, filmmaker webpages and other self-submitted sites are specifically excluded as coverage. So where is it? This shouldn't be so hard for a film released only 5 years ago. This is normally a no-brainer for Australian films. Any notable Australian film should have received some significant reviews by critics in the country's many major newspapers, magazines or film journals. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with what you're saying. When I looked at the notability guidelines for films this one stood out at me: The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Now I don't consider the awards they received "major" awards but that combined with being on that website run by the Australian Government tipped it in their favor, plus the two screenings at film festivals. However if that site is purely made up of only author-submitted movies then maybe that would be different. Still I'd have to stay with my keep for now, but I definitely see your reasoning and frankly maybe I'm fighting a lost cause, but I'll keep trying to help the article til it fails or succeeds. --Banime (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and WP:GNG.Nrswanson (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CactusWriter. Doesn't pass our film notability guidelines, and while we tend towards inclusion when it comes to just about any film, this doesn't even pass our very reasonable minimum standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though some basic info could be merged into an article associated with the Melbourne Underground Film Festival 2003 season, but no such article exists yet Gnangarra 16:39, 20 October 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.