Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Cream Man (movie)
- 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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, vandalism, vanity, fiction ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If previous deletions can be found (asserted but no evidence given on Chris McPeak then speedy delete. — Phil Welch 23:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris McPeak speedied then recreated. Speedied again. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete.This is an important independent production. It is a crime to try to censor struggling artists as they attempt to get noticed for their artistic accomplishments. Just because you aren't cultured enough to be aware of these films doesn't mean that listing them online is inappropriate. It is the very height of arrogance to suggest that since a film is not the product of the corporate and stagnate Hollywood system, it is therefore not valid as artistic expression. Just because the makers of this does not have the studio dollars or distribution muscle behind the many so-called mainstream films, it doesn't mean you can shut them down. Do not use your ignorance as an excuse to limit a filmmakers access to the viewing public. That...is un-American. - Peter O'Toole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.237.168.53 (talk • contribs)
- Do Not Delete I cannot believe that we're even having this discussion. This is a fantastic film, and I hope that it is well recieved if and when it gets a distribution deal. Don't censor art. - Tom Whitworth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Whitworth (talk • contribs)
- Do Not Delete. Riotto Ulriggio happens to be my absolute favorite independent, non-mainstream director, and his rendition of "Ice Cream Man" is one of his absolute best works. Additionally, despite criticism to the contrary, Joe Howard and Chris McPeak offer up stunning, Academy-award-winning quality performances. I was terribly disappointed when I learned that Chris McPeak's entry had been deleted before I had a chance to defend his immense cultural significance, and could not let the same happen to this masterful film. The influence these three artists have had in the Independent Republic of Freemont, Seattle, WA is impossible to gauge, but let it suffice to say that to remove knowledge of this film from the public sphere would be a grave injustice, and would be an act of violence against the American people. ~Saul Madigo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul madigo (talk • contribs)
- Delete as nn indy movies, unverifiable. The above users should note that new user's votes must be discounted to prevent ballot stuffing. See WP:SOCK#.22Meatpuppets.22 --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
- To be pedantic, we're not voting, we're discussing. Also, there's no "must" in the discarding. If new (or even anon) contributors present compelling arguments with supporting evidence these are usually taken into consideration.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]- I am aware of the AfD guidelines. Sorry, I have simply worded it poorly. "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." Those contributions will probably be discounted in light of the sockpuppet policy above. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversely, if new, anonymous contributors present compelling evidence contrary to their preferences, that is also taken into account. — Phil Welch 01:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Juding by the user-page vandlism from the above accounts, they are not meatpuppets at all, but full-blown sockpuppets. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To be pedantic, we're not voting, we're discussing. Also, there's no "must" in the discarding. If new (or even anon) contributors present compelling arguments with supporting evidence these are usually taken into consideration.
- Delete. Unverified. *drew 01:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unverified some more. Melchoir 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unverified, and sub-juvenile, to boot. And I am aware of what has happened to others who voted to delete. - Dalbury (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 18:34, 13 November 2005 (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.