Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aussie idiots

Aussie idiots

Unremarkable high school film. скоморохъ 09:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article says it is an "indie, amateur" movie, made by a couple of students. Article links to a promo that is clearly unprofessional. Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:V. Thaurisil^t_c 09:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clearly non-notable amateur film. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing any reason to stay. Article simply to plug an upcoming youtubeism - Peripitus (Talk) 10:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The video clearly exists. What else is important? Perhaps needs to be moved to a more gramatically-correct title, though. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non-notable and pretty much admitting to it. ~~Also, I'm going to be bold and state that just because it exists is not a reason to keep it.~~ I think I can speak for eveyone here when I say that the article hasn't established notability. Just because notability is only a guideline doesn't mean you can ignore it.1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable high school film. --87.113.93.118 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It exists" is not a valid argument because we don't depend on direct observation of the world- that would be original research. Here we're an encyclopedia and this means we use sources. If it doesn't have enough coverage in proper sources there can be no article. Kurt, surely by now you're familiar with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Why would you knowingly vote contrary to policies and the goals of the project? Fork if you want, but you have no chance here of changing such fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should know better than most that "policies" are not prescriptive--they are merely statements of what has happened in the past. We are absolutely NOT bound by precedent. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're effectively bound by the most basic parameters of the project. This includes the notion that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". This is not some little detail that may not always apply- it's a fundamental part of what the project is about. Nobody's likely to change this, just for you. Friday (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm quite aware that this is an encyclopedia. The mere fact of something's existence makes it a legitimate topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia, since an encyclopedia is there to compile the sum of all human knowledge. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]