Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis Eternal


 * 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 based on sourcing provided in this discussion Gnangarra 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Artemis Eternal

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

Fails WP:NFF and does not give any evidence with regards to notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a reference if that helps. Artemis Eternal --Alreajk (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in itself, unfortunately. I'm not contesting its existence, but it's notability. You might want to refer to WP:NOTFILM to see what we generally require to assert notability. You should also be aware that future films aren't notable enough to warrant independent articles unless they have already started filming (and have a reliable source to prove it). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not strictly true. There are cases in which the preproduction of a film is notable enough to have significant coverage in reliable sources -- for example, Rapunzel.  That appears to be the case here as well; Stover's unique funding ideas seem to have garnered attention.  Powers T 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just remembered that Rapunzel is in full production and has been for years, but I think my point stands. Powers T 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete even though I've done a bit of clean up on this article, I can't find sources to prove that production is underway nor any to prove notability. At least it will die prettier. - Dravecky (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Alright delete it then. I'll copy it to my user namespace and create the article when it receives more attention and begins filming. Thanks for your help and input. --Alreajk (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Added another reference. Nothing big enough to save the article, but a reference nonetheless. --Alreajk (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete additional news reports include TechCrunch http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/28/artemis-eternal-brings-crowd-funding-to-movie-making/ and The Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080229.WBmingram20080229121641/WBStory/WBmingram/ --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears that the funding method Stover has initiated is innovative enough to receive coverage from The Globe and Mail and TechCrunch.  I think that's sufficient notability that deletion is unnecessary.  Powers T 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. Well in that case we have to write more about the funding method that she has chosen. --24.189.67.12 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (Alreajk)


 * 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.