Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybornetics


 * 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. Puppetry aside, this one almost met WP:NF. If an editor wishes it userfied to them for possible improvements, they need only ask and show me the additional sources that meet WP:NF.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Cybornetics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Could find no sources that subject meets WP:MOVIE. Only brief, promo-like, references provided (the ones that are working). No critic reviews. Coverage on the Internet seems to be limited to catalog-like listings. Neil N  talk to me 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Film is independently distributed all over the world by itself and doesn't need any. User:MovieMoguls 19:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Existence does not automatically confer notability. --Neil N  talk to me 19:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The publisher engages in direct-sales to buyers (which they are being systematically punished for) and does not need the standard Hollywood distribution system, does that mean it should not be noted, should we provide receipts that the product is selling worldwide.User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, selling something does not establish notability. Selling your hand-knitted socks over the Internet does not mean your socks are notable. --Neil N  talk to me 19:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The film was theatrically released in various theaters around the world, and released internationally on various platforms such as VOD & DVD and also has a soundtrack on CD, there is also lots of information on the internet, as well as bus & subway billboards & advertisements. Your knit-socks analogy is false. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the "lots of information" which appears in independent third party sources and is not based off press releases. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 19:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Can this help you: http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news_2013/090113_marketing_credit_sept13.shtml User:MovieMoguls  — Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)  Confirmed sock of Cybornetics <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 03:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two sentences and with, "The “Made in NY” Marketing Credit provides free co-branded advertising to productions that shoot the majority of their projects in the five boroughs"? No. Please actually read WP:FILM and WP:GNG to get a sense of what is needed. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You asked for info & info was provided, the film was marketed widely, who paid for the marketing is not the subject of the discussion, stop looking for reasons to validate your own mistakes, the Hollywood system is not the only system and independent films have the right to be listed on wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a private website and you have no unfettered rights here. You are welcome to write and improve articles in compliance with our policies and guidelines but not otherwise. The burden is on you to show convincingly that this film meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for films, and you have not yet done so. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment No, I asked for "lots of information which appears in independent third party sources". Two sentences by an involved source doesn't cut it. Secondly, nothing has a "right" to an article on Wikipedia. Finally, I've removed your "keep" label - you only get one !vote in this discussion and you've made that up above. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Like the nominator, I can only find catalog listings and press releases. Kolbasz (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it does meet WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "notable" person whose article has been deleted six times and is going for a seventh? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If this person is so unnotable why when you Google, Bing or Yahoo his name there's several hundred pages that come up. The first deletion voted to Keep, so why was there a second deletion in the first place?unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Dwayne Buckle resulted in a no consensus (not a keep) which would commonly now lead to a delete for a BLP. And seriously, how hard is it to sign your posts? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A "no consensus" in 2007 does not mean it applies to 2015, especially since the subject has released many more works since then. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated comment added 22:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not a notable film by Wikipedia's standards. Rotten Tomatoes says "There are no critic reviews yet for Cybornetics. Keep checking". The Hollywood Reporter has a one sentence summary, almost certainly derived from a press release. My search yielded no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Film is notable for many reasons, but also film meets WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. • Cybornetics (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFILM: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." An obscure film by a person of questionable notability does not qualify. And what's your relation to MovieMoguls? You've edited the exact same articles and drafts. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If this person is so questionable then why does he have full lengthed reviews from Emmy Nominated journalists, Andrea Gronvall and why does he have full length articles in The Daily News, Leigh Remizowski [http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/lic-arts-film-star-article-1.182218 — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned] comment added by Cybornetics (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stating a three sentence blurb is a "full lengthed review" makes it obvious you are incapable of approaching this subject impartially. And you have not answered my questions about conflict of interest or your connection with MovieMoguls. Please do so or I will take up the matter at the appropriate notice board. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Location has started a sockpuppet investigation against and . Kolbasz (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I am not a sock puppet, I am in no way associated with this film or person in which you are trying to delete from the internet, should I provide my dental records, stop deleting these posts. The Film is notable because it has many references on all 3 major search engines, but also film meets WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. • Deathtocensorship (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)  Blocked as a suspected sock of Cybornetics. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 18:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quack, quack. Sockpuppet investigations/Cybornetics --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:24, 6 January 2015 (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.