Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinner with Lloyd


 * 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. If anyone wishes this userfied to them for improvement and sourcing, they may ping me.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Dinner with Lloyd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Articles for deletion/Dinner with Lloyd Could find no sources that subject meets WP:MOVIE. Only brief, promo-like, references provided. Neil N  talk to me 18:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The film has been published. WP:MOVIE. User:MovieMoguls 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Existing" does not establish notability. --Neil N  talk to me 18:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The publisher engages in direct-sales to buyers and does not use the standard Hollywood distribution route, does that mean it should not be noted, should we provide receipts that the product is selling worldwide.User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 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. And can you please sign your posts by typing ~ ? --Neil N  talk to me 19:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The film exists, but is not notable. I have found no independent reviews in reliable sources. Everything I can find online about the film, including the Wikipedia article, is based on this press release. A reprinted press release does not establish notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The film is notable, it has been published & released on various platforms, its 2015, independent reviews can be brought & sold just like facebook likes, that doesn't mean something is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)   Confirmed sock of Cybornetics <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 03:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The most common way for a new release to be notable is "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Not just any review qualifies, which eliminates the concern about buying and selling. See WP:NFILMS for details. Simply asserting that the film is notable doesn't fly here. Your argument needs to be grounded in a basic understanding of our policies and guidelines. Also, sign your posts, please. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The film and it's distributor engages in new and uncommon practices of film distribution, does that mean the products are un-notable? Most nationally known film critics are in the pockets of the Hollywood system, and most finds ways to not publicize independent films, does that mean these films are un-notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply Why the heck can't you sign your posts like other editors do, ? To answer your question, yes, that is exactly right. If the film fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for the notability of films, then the film is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. That is basic logic, and whatever grudges you may have about the "Hollywood system" have no impact on this debate. By the way, there are a large number of independent films that meet our standards, and many respected critics regularly review independent films. So, get respected critics to pay attention to this film, and then we will talk further. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:00, 5 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) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Film is notable, many more search results on Bing than on Google (Why is that?)Also, film 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. • Cybornetics (talk) 05:49, 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. Search results are irrelevant for establishing notability.  And what's your relation to MovieMoguls? You've edited the exact same articles and drafts. Please declare any conflict of interest. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:43, 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-[[User:Cybornetics|• Cybornetics] (talk) 06:56, 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> 07:14, 5 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.