Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken Radio


 * 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. X clamation point  03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken Radio

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

Notability in Question
 * No listing for this movie in IMDB
 * No listing for movie at the festival mentioned -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 14, 2009 @ 17:09


 * Delete both. spam. This seems connected to Michael Wilbur, also up for deletion and also not notable.--Artypants (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. - I too have looked but can find no confirmation of notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - Another article has been made about this "movie", see Broken Radio (film). Not sure if this new article should be included under this AfD or a new one entirely. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • February 14, 2009 @ 20:38
 * I think we are being given the run around. Maybe a good idea for Editors to band together and find out what's going on, and maybe alert an Admin or two. I admit I don't know whether a new AfD is started or get an Admin to speedy delete the new one. --Artypants (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the second article to this AfD and changed my !vote above to "delete both". It would be pointless to start another AfD, the articles are identical and clearly stand or fall together. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote to "delete both" as well. Good move.--Artypants (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ""Delete Broken Radio (film)"" was accidently created
 * ""Keep Broken Radio"" IMDB only posts in-production movies from major production companies (dreamworks, universal, etc.) and not local. Local films are only accepted upon release and certificate of release, and a fee which has been paid if you want a copy of the receipt as proof. I have the films registration with the writers guild of america as proof of it. As for no existance in the listings from without a box, I stated that it had recieved honorable mention in the festival, meaning it was given that title but not accepted into the screenings, thusly it would not be listed. The providence film festival is a private film festival perfromed at providence college in providence, ri and I have in print files proving its award on that if you wish for me to reference, and or scan in for reference those. AS or ghost hunters the site I claimed to be not credible, I joined the crew in late 2008 as an interning prodiction assitant for the new season and will be credited upon the upon coming 2009-2010 season begining on March 18th and thusly I posted the first site to have the proof of said credits. Again, I have the paper work signed and dated by the shows producers as well as pilgrim films declaring my employment as an intern. I also have my certificates of awards won by the films I have produced, as well as links to either the film it self in some that I have only produced and links to trailers of other films in which I have directed and produced. All which I shall have on both sites by Sunday at midnight when all said documents are scanned in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilbs (talk • contribs) 05:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no significant verifiable 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable film. JuJube (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- Non-notable film. Article does not provide support for claims.  ttonyb1 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable with no prejudice against recreation. Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete student projects are not notable unless they qualify for other reasons.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It got honorable mention at a film festival whose wikipedia page says has 25,000 attending. Do events that have that many people attending them get a page normally?  Is any award given by such enough to make anyone notable?    D r e a m Focus  00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to the authors comment above the "honorable mention" is a polite way of saying that the festival declined to screen the film which cannot be taken as an indicium of notability.  Indeed anything short of a Best of Festival type of award is unlikely to sway AfD commentators.  Full length reviews in edited print or web publications (i.e. not blogs or reprints of producer provided copy) are the best way to establish notability.  If they don't exist the film probably shouldn't have an article.  See the relevant guideline.  Also, to put the discussion in context, Wikipedia generally has a more stringent inclusion policy than IMDb and so is usually a poor choice for promotion if they have declined to host a page on the film.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:USERFY back to author User:Mwilbs. When verifiable notability exists, he can bring it on back with a smile. I would accept that the film title exists without seeing it on IMDB as long as I could verify it elsewhere. I could accept that it recieved an honorable mention at a film festival if I were shown a link to the festival page verifying its award. However, neither were supplied and neither can be found. User:Mwilbs needs to understand that if he and his films get a few nice reviews or write-ups, then that would be a whole different story. USERFY this, let him add those reviews and write-ups, and then he can ask for input about what it could need to assure it not being tossed back into AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - User:Mwilbs was blocked for making legal threats. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 16, 2009 @ 03:44
 * Now that's a pity. Only on Wiki for 2 days and blocked. It was obvious from his growing animous that he was quite new to Wiki and was baffled and frustrated in his lack of knowledge. Its a real shame. But... that's how it goes. Newcomers will never find wiki a welcoming place unless they can accept that their early efforts will be usually tossed out time after time until they get it right. I recommended a userfication so that he might have had that time to learm. Oh, well. Was he ever ""Welcomed". I may be wrong, but it looks like the first thing in his talk page is a Deletion notice. Poor guy... he never knew what hit him. Ouch.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with you to an extent, don't feel to bad; He only came to the pedia to create an article about himself, and I can't imagine he would've hung around after they'd been created/established. Ryan 4314   (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand too what you are saying. He got flustered. He over-reacted. He got himself blocked. Now he's yet one more citzen cursing wikipedia for its confusions. One has to muse sometimes about what might have happened had he been made to feel welcome... and his article placed in a "review" status before being tossed ill-prepared to mainspace. Oh, well. If he does reach a suitable success level, surely someone else will write about him or his films. Sure hope they do a good job. Hate to see his blood flowing from the same wounds. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea I agree, and you'll see I !voted with "no prejudice against recreation", but if he had "been made to feel welcome... and his article placed in a "review" status" he would've still buggered off, he was only here to promote himself. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:23, 17 February 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.