Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoidant (Film)


 * 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. North America1000 22:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Avoidant (Film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article on newly-released, non-notable film. I can't find reliable sources. —teb728 t c 10:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - spam by the film's maker. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By what CSD category? It can't be G11, which says, "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." Although the article may have been written to publicize the film, it was written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Account opened solely to advertise completely non-notable film. Poster in infobox additionally created by user. sixty nine   • speak up •  15:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 12:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 12:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * alts:
 * filmmaker:
 * music:
 * studio:
 * distributor:


 * Delete (or userfy) as being TOO SOON. Only recently released, the thing apparently does not (yet) have the requisite sourcing. I have addressed some article issues, and the thing can be resurrected if or when souces come forward. As tone is (and was) addressable, a speedy is inappropriate.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 15:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. I agree that we should be careful to avoid biting new editors, but the article is entirely promotional and I could not find any sources to substantiate notability. If you'd like to get sense of what the movie is about, you can check out the trailer on YouTube; apparently the film's subtitle is "Blackmail is Just the Beginning." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A film does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because it exists, or even just because it has a page on IMDb or a trailer on YouTube — to get an article on here, a film has to be the subject of reliable source coverage which verifies a legitimate claim of notability under WP:NFILM. I'm also side-eyeing the claim of making $12,000 in the "global online box-office" — I can find no sourced indication that this is available on any VOD platform that a viewer has to pay to subscribe to, and even the already-speedied article that was simultaneously created about the director only claimed social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook where "box office" for a video clip is utterly unquantifiable as a dollar amount. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best as there are no better signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  03:25, 4 February 2016 (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.