Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Strangers and a Foosball


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

2 Strangers and a Foosball

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Bdb484 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable per nominator.
 * Delete Very non-notable. BrianY (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 06:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 06:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - non notable. On a side note, what do you think of even having a category like this: [Canadian Film Centre Films] ? It seems like a non-notable category which gives license to pages like this.... Deadchildstar (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am the filmmaker of this movie. The title is mentioned in articles (not only in the English site, but also in other languages) of one of the cast members and that is the reason that motivated me to make a Wikipedia article. I have not expanded much on the article out of modesty, as I hope it will be fans of my film and of this actor (Tim Rozon) who will later add information. Also, I would feel a bit uncomfortable if there was too much information, as I don't think my movies deserve long articles, but they definitely deserve something. Feel free to edit the information (such as the links to Canadian film festivals), but I think it is extremely pretentious from your part to determine that my work is not notable. I have dedicated my whole life to make movies and even if you judge that they are small, they are the product of an unbeatable passion that hopefully will be more fruitful in years to come.
 * What is your problem, people?

If you think this article requires some specific additions right away in order to be considered a more relevant source of information, then just tell me what you need and I will add it. Be constructive, not destructive.

Finally, have you even seen my film before considering it non-notable? You are certainly invited and welcome to watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmforever (talk • contribs) 06:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I can learn about the notability of your film by watching it. Alexius08 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Filmforever, per your request, I've added some section suggestions. Remember the following:It can be tempting to write about ...projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about ...projects close to you. 98.71.214.182 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Filmforever, please take note of wikipedia guidelines, in particular WP:NF, which states a number of points regarding distribution ,reviews, etc. You will find that - while your film might be full of passion, excellent to some and have many fans - those things do not mean that it satisfies Wikipedia notability guidelines. Deadchildstar (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails to meet WP:NF notability guidelines. Unreferenced. No results on Google News, Metacritic, RottenTomatoes. Filmforever, please visit WP:N to learn more about Wikipedia's definition of notability. No one is trying to disparage the value of your work. — Rankiri (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete what is with all these non-notable film articles? Darrenhusted (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since there are no references to WP:Reliable sources that suggest that this article could pass the Wikipedia policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:No original research. I will reconsider my suggestion if links to reliable sources are found. This is not the appropriate venue to discuss the category but I think it should be kept. Double Blue  (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This movie is still notable, and add that to the fact that this article is still in its starting phase, so not much should be expected, as fas as the quality is concerned, With more people contributing to this article, this article will improve a lot. -- 科学高爾夫迷 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-mainstream short by WP:NN studio/director. Could as well be Speedy Delete. -- RUL3R *flaming 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails to substantiate, or even assert, criteria that meet WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's no evidence of notability. Of course, if WP:RS supporting notability is found, I'd be more than happy to change my vote. Tim Song (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it is not notable. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.