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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Charlie Brown Kwanzaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I regretfully withdrew my speedy nomination of this because it does assert importance. However, I still do not believe it meets WP:N or WP:WEB as there are no secondary sources and the cult status assert is subjective. Redfarmer (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only quasi-notable as an Internet meme. JuJube (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• *Comment The film is actually rather well-known among fans of viral videos and is a ubiquitous presence across Net video sites. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the question though. The question is whether it meets the criteria of WP:WEB. Redfarmer (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Okay, as per WP:WEB:

“The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.”

I cited the article on Film Threat – I can try to locate others.

“The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster”

It debuted on iFilm (the most prestigious of the online video sites) and is on MySpace Video, AOL Video, and it is all over YouTube (do a search – amazing how many people reposted that).

Remember, this is an underground parody with the unauthorized use of copyright protected material -- the filmmakers did not come forward to take credit and publicize their work.

I am also hopeful that the requests for deletion are not based on the film's humor and contents, which some people do not find amusing for very obvious reasons. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough per WP:WEB or WP:FILM, or heck, just plain WP:N. The Film Threat article is just someone's review and doesn't look like a significant third-party sources, and the other links are to YouTube. It may be "popular" underground, but I see no notability outside of a few small circles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Charlie Brown major, the best one ever. It's extraordinary, so good that wikipedia is not worthy of this article so we should delete it. --Alisyn^talk 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, Huh? Ecoleetage (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that irony, sarcasm, or parody? Dlohcierekim Deleted? 13:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notablity. Falls far short in terms of independent non trivial coverage --T-rex 15:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to A Charlie Brown Christmas. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be against a merge/redirect unless it's just a brief mention. This is not an official Charlie Brown production but a parody with extreme racial undertones. Redfarmer (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course, only a brief mention. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Now that is a brilliant compromise! I second (third?) that emotion. In fact, I will add that brief mention right now! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge but don't kill If it's worthy of parady then it's worthy of mention. I am against the removal of any knowledge that could benefit the community, no matter how banal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiamonet (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great fact and sourceApplemac20 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm afraid that notability has not been established with verifiable sources. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to ask for an extension on this? The film has been submitted to the IMDB for inclusion in its database and that could take 7-10 days. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: you've asked, but (a) I find it likely that given this many commentators, an admin will decide to close it anyway, and (b) not everything in the IMDB is suitable for Wikipedia, and in this case there's no reason to substitute the IMDB's wisdom for our own.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 8 February 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.