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. John254 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steal This Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

My reasons for nominating this now are the same for supporting deletion during the first nomination. This article provides no evidence of notability through the provision of multiple, reliable, independent sources. Those sources provided on the page (as well as those most immediately apparent from a google search) are either forum threads or blog postings. The arguments presented for keeping the article during the first discussion were essentially suggesting that WP:N be suspended for this article, because its subjects discussed very "important issues." Someguy1221 05:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This film is important for anti-copyright movement and piracy culture. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not for the above stated reason (which I agree is not covered under any Wiki-Policy), but rather that it has sourced multiple independant reviews on the film, which does make it notable. Turlo Lomon 05:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The "reviews" are blog postings or near-equivalents. Someguy1221 05:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I will have to disagree with your analysis of those sites. I did not consider them blogs when I was going through them. Turlo Lomon 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Important, yes, but having checked this on a search engine, it appears this documentary has not received any mentioned by reliable sources, that is, excluding forums and blogs. If it really were a notable movement, at least one newspaper should have mentioned it. Reviews only help for notability if they are published by sources considered to be reliable on Wikipedia. Therefore, it's like an in thing, not exposed, yet. Importance does not equate to notability.--Alasdair 05:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Of cource this has not been picked up by "main stream media" (And therefore most "reliable sources", such as the NY Times etc), what do you think the topic of the film is? Reliable sources however can be found with some digging. It was a talking point at the British Documentary Festival. Boing Boing has an article (I might point out that Boing Boing was originally a magazine, moving online dosn't deminish its notability or reliability, just as WP:NOTPAPER doesn't make us any less reliable (there are other reasons for that)) Heres another couple I have found [1][2]. If we can't keep it (And I think I have established that we can) then it should be merged back into The_Pirate_Bay#Documentary_and_publicity. Also, I have flagged the article for Rescue. - Fosnez 06:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well, being mentioned in the British Documentary Festival is sufficient. Now please fix the article.--Alasdair 07:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thankyou, I have added the reference in the introduction of the article, but it needs a rewite to make it flow better. I will add it to my list of ones to do, but if anyone else could have a crack at it that would be great. Fosnez 07:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as noted above, there are sources referring to this film. Remaining issues are cosmetic for the most part. This article could serve as a test case regarding "non-traditional" film distribution. It's no longer current to claim a film is non-notable simply because it's distributed only over the Internet. Wikipedia policy and attitudes on this (and this goes for other Web-based productions, etc) probably need some updating. 23skidoo 11:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability might be hard to establish with main stream media, but that is the entire idea of an underground "movement" that is known by many outside of the mainstream. Topic and film are notable, as is the source. I thought we just went through this two weeks ago. I bit much to nominate it "for the same reasons that led to a keep before". I think perhaps a good faith nom should at least be creative as to why to renom it after two weeks. Otherwise it looks simply like you want it deleted, regardless of consensus. (ie: not good faith). Pharmboy 23:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thank you for not assuming good faith. I thought I stated my reasons quite clearly above. The keep !voters from the last AFD seemed to be ignoring WP:N. I had doubts that a few people who thought the movie was so important it didn't need good sourcing could form a good representation of what the larger community concensus would be. And just to nitpick, it was "no consensus," not "keep." And concensus can change. Someguy1221 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith Policy is pretty clear that it isn't required to be blind to consider good faith. Renoming before an article has had an opportunity to be resourced after a failed AFD seems to qualify in my book. Pharmboy 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Six weeks? I guess we just can't see eye to eye on this. Someguy1221 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to agree with Someguy here that the previous discussion specifically ignored the discussion of notability. However, I feel that notability has been established, and that this is no longer an issue - for either debate. Turlo Lomon 07:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:IAR. I'm not Swedish, I never got bittorrent to work, and I've still watched this movie. That I "noticed" it despite all the hindrances makes it notable, at least to me, even if the "big guys" of Hollywood don't think so. As a last resort, merge would also work for me. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be a real movie, really screened in real theaters. Bearian 01:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per all the above. 81.179.124.68 01:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Turlo Lomon, Fosnez and 23skidoo. Clearly verifiable and notable. The Parsnip! 01:59, 14 September 2007 (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.