Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Beneath (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. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

From Beneath (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Concern: Unremarkable film, unreleased, no google or google news. Eeekster (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too soon: unreleased, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The film article is premature and the topic does not have required coverage.


 * Website will be up in next few days. Part of media package. Many people interested in film. Imdbs attached — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashemorrison (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)  — Ashemorrison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A film's website or IMDB are not enough per WP:NF or WP:RS to show notability. We are not here to be part of its "media package". Try again in a few months to offer a neutral article... BUT only if or when this is released and gets coverage in reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as G11 unambiguous promotion. This is an unreleased independent movie with no one notable associated--the director's just-added WP entry, David Doucette--should also be speedied on WP:NOTPROMOTION grounds. Searching on "From Beneath" + "David Doucette" finds zero Gnews hits, and general Google search returns a whopping nine hits--WP, primary, or unrelated. This project is not notable now and probably never will be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that sourcing is the issue and it's WP:TOOSOON certainly... but in that context, ANY premature article might by seen as promotional. If or when this is released and then gets coverage, an article might be worth consideration. And though the speedy on the David Doucette will likely be contested by its author, as a WP:BLP violation, I agree that that article is premature as well and do not see it or he as verifiable or notable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to talk me down, I would probably be too cautious to actually speedy anything other than a blank page. :) But I do in fact find that most premature articles are promotional violations, by my lights. And the entry for the director is particularly egregious: "After experiencing success with the short films he made while attending Carleton University (working towards an honors degree in film studies), and spending two years working as a production assistant on various film and television sets in the Vancouver area, David felt well prepared to tackle his first feature film...David intends From Beneath to be a bold announcement of his arrival in the cinematic arena and a love letter to his favorite genre." Blech. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not in disagreement about the quality of the page on the filmmaker, nor in that being unsourced, the tone of the page on him seems quite autobiographical and lacking in neutrality. This is a common mistake of a newcomer unfamiliar with guidelines. I'd send him to WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU and suggest careful study before he makes any other contributions. Had a reliable source been cited as stating the same thing as did the author, we'd still desire it toned down.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Website worked for me. www.frombeneathfilm.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.20.112  (talk • contribs) 19:35, October 27, 2011‎


 * speedy delete propose WP:SNOW Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2011 (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.