Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Funkastophales

message: I have refactored the longer comments to here in order to make the main day's AFD page easier to go through. Please continue to discuss here, and make short discussion and/or recommendations to keep/delete on the main AFD page. Stifle 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) It's not verifiable. When I polled Google for it yesterday, I got no hits. Of course, not all credible sources of information are on the web, let alone googlable. So what credible sources do you suggest? (I have a couple of excellent libraries at my disposal.) (2) When you comment, sign at the end. You do this with four twiddles in a row: ~~~~. Thank you. -- Hoary 23:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aha, now you're talking. (And thank you for signing.) No, screenshots aren't helpful. But if this has been shown in many art shows, I'd have thought it would have been mentioned in some magazine or newsletter. On the other hand, maybe it hasn't yet but soon will be; if this is so, the article should be deleted but that deletion wouldn't prejudice its chances of being re-created when conditions are right (when news of it has filtered through to the odd newspaper or three). What you might do is create a username for yourself (easy!) and copy this article to a subpage of your own, so that you can work on it and repost it when its content really is verifiable. (As I've written above, I rather wish it were all true and verifiably so, as it sounds much more interesting than the average verifiable Hollywood dreck. Not that my tastes should have anything to do with it.) -- Hoary 00:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your continual attacks in this manner are getting tiresome. 1) I agree with other users that this would be an interesting movie, but it simply doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia verifiability standards. 2) As I have already told you I have never had anything to do with yout zerohorizon forum. The only usernames/usernames I ever use are strictly permutations of my name, so unless there was a Joshua Z or something close to that on zerohorizon it couldn't be me.  3) Read WP:NPA 4) If you are going to keep making this claim you could at least let us see your evidence. 5) Are you aware of how little credibility someone has making claims against other users after they have already attempted to impersonate that user and vandalize under the impostor account? JoshuaZ 01:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, something odd seems to be going on here. 1) Could you please clarify if you made the User:Joshuaz with a lower case z, since it seems to pretty cleary be your handywork. 2) I am highly skeptical that these images are real given that it seems you have already attempted to impersonate me once. As I think most wikipedia users who know me will tell you, I don't talk like that. Can you provide actual links to where these posts occur? JoshuaZ 01:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And I'm getting tired of requests for an explanation of how it doesn't meet verification standards. (The explanation appears above, repeatedly.) Can we please cut all talk of what people have or haven't done on other websites, and concentrate on the verifiability of claims about this movie? Above: I will find the flyers i have for it and possibly news clippings: good, it's the latter that we're after. NB we'll have to know where they came from; "I forgot to note that down" won't wash. And as I've said, if proof can't be found very soon, and the article is deleted, that doesn't mean that it can't be re-created later after the movie has made a splash of some kind in one or two newspapers. Actually I can't see what the urgency is: Citizen Kane had to wait decades for an article on Wikipedia, and I don't think its many admirers complained about the delay. -- Hoary 01:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, two very specific yes or no questions. 1) Do you have links to where the above forum posts actually occured? 2) Did you or did you not construct the Joshuaz user name on Wikipedia? JoshuaZ 02:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh? Whether the answers are yes yes, yes no, no yes, or no no, they have no bearing on the verifiability of claims made about this movie. -- Hoary 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, you are correct that the various allegations are not relevant to the AfD, I have moved discussion of them to the user's talk page. JoshuaZ 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if true, allegations about what such-and-such a username did on another website throw no light on the verifiability of what's said about a film. If anybody wants to pursue such an argument, do it elsewhere. The film has made an underground presence here in Seattle but the president we are setting is that there needs to be some sort of corporate acceptance to make things exist. I think that by "president" you mean "precedent" but I still don't fully understand. Still, I can start to guess. If you're complaining that it's unreasonable to demand that the Hearst, Murdoch and similar infotainment empires must describe a movie before that description appears in WP, I completely agree. But nobody has stated this. Despite the best oligopolistic efforts of the infotainment empires, Seattle surely has alternative newspapers and news/events/arts websites (and I don't mean mere blogs). If you were to see the film is this not verification? No, because I'm just a nobody and there's no reason why others should believe my claims. If on the other hand James Berardinelli got it and wrote about it on his site, that would be verification. In other words, it is saying that only films that are released commercially can be verified. . .  No it isn't. Herzog has seen the film after his festival here in Seattle. You mean Werner Herzog? If he writes about it, we'll be interested. Some things can be underground and truly independent without being corporately or finacially sanctioned. Very true. But if you are given a dvd? Again, meaningless. If Werner Herzog is given one and writes about it, meaningful. -- Hoary 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Horay your agitation is definitely not understandable. I think you are addressing me, "Hoary". I am not agitated. (Indeed, I'm more than slightly bored.) What I am getting from what you are saying is that somebody else needs to write about it...Somebody that has an archive? Pretty much, yes. This point simply is this- IF THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE FILM (including its distribution, viewing, content, and INTENT) IS TO AVOID THIS how then does one provide verification? If this movie (or its distribution) is as remarkable as you say, then it will probably be written up, e.g. by Werner Herzog. (Here's his site.) WP can wait for that. What is meant is to point out that you are saying that there must be verifiable evidence that something exists, yet I am asking you specifics...Like do you want a note from the theaters who showed it? No I don't. You are suggesting that the filmmaker submit this film to a critic or get someone in a paper to write about it, this will make it exist-at least in the wikipedian sense? Actually I wasn't suggesting that earlier, though it's certainly an option. Indeed, you might contact a critic or a newspaper. And yes, if a paper writes it up, then that will be verifiable. You are some dude on wikipedia man, you are not part of some wikipedia clan. Well said: I am indeed just some dude. Thanks for the reality check! -- Hoary 13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)