Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Guys


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Green Guys

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Promo for non-notable film project still in production. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks notability. WP:CRYSTAL too? Crafty (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - this article is not a "crystal ball", and is verifiable through the references stated - news articles, imdb link, and cast links. It is an upcoming film shot in phoenix.  If articles can exist for "Twilight: Eclipse", a movie that has not even been shot yet, then this should definitely be kept.  This is not a non-notable promotion, it is information and details about a film recently shot in Phoenix with accomplished actors, one of which won a Gemini award for best actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondlaw (talk • contribs)  — Raymondlaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "It is an upcoming film" is an argument that this is a crystal ball situation, and therefore against keeping. As for "Twilight: Eclipse", (which is to be found at Eclipse (2010 film); don't waste time searching for Twilight: Eclipse), the situation is very different for several reasons, including the fact that Eclipse is the latest in a series which has already obtained considerable attention, and simply the fact that "Eclipse" has received an enormous amount of attention in the press and elsewhere, which Green Guys has yet to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - film already discussed in the news, in this case ABC News. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * clarification - That's not the national ABC News, that's a brief report by a local station in the town where the film is being made ("local boy comes home to make his first flick" angle). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The only coverage anyone has come up with is the article mentioned above from the local station affiliated with ABC. As Orangemike suggests, the tone of the article is very much that what is worth reporting is that a movie is being made locally by a local boy, rather than that the movie itself is newsworthy. Calling this one piece substantial coverage of the movie would be a stretch. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Keep) When does press determine the legitimacy of a project's existence? Regardless if ABC coverage is national or local... the lead actors are quite noteworthy and have won awards, it is their new film,on the internet there is proof of it slowly gaining more and more attention, and of it being shot and existing. Wikipedia is littered with films that have yet to be released.  And this clearly isn't just a student film and not just someone's side project.  Simply because it has yet to be released or is not under a big studio does not negate its existence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.129.138 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck through duplicate !vote by Raymondlaw editing anonymously: see Raymondlaw's next post for confirmation that it was him. ("That was my original point" referring to the above edit.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * response - the question is not whether the project exists, it is whether it is notable. As to your other arguments: notability is not inherited; even major actors participated in non-notable projects; and "it's gonna be big someday" is a tacit way of admitting it is not yet notable, but predicting that it will become notable soon - which fails the principle that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and doesn't try to predict the future." -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * response - so basically you are saying that if the article had more press it would become notable. That was my original point, and that is ridiculous. What is great about wikipedia is finding information about people and events  that have happened. Here you find out about a new completed project by noteworthy actors that is in existence, very notable,  and proven by imdb, ABC news, and other websites. Raymondlaw (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondlaw (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether you regard it as ridiculous or not, Raymondlaw, it is Wikipedia policy: we accept only articles about subjects which have already received substantial independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:Notability if you haven't already, Raymondlaw - and specifically the first sentence of the section "General Notability Guideline". That describes what the word notability means in its technical sense on Wikipedia, rather than any of the other meanings it may have in everyday life. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL, as well as WP:NFF and WP:V... It's COI promotionalism, just like the rest of the creator's articles... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * response - There is proof of the movie existing and having completed filming as per coverage by ABC and other internet sites.  As article creator, this is not a conflict of interest as I did not work on the film at all.  Raymondlaw (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondlaw (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 
 * duplicate !vote stricken... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody has suggested that the film does not exist, and what is more Orangemike explicitly pointed out that existence was not the question the last time Raymondlaw made that mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NFF. Narthring (talk  • contribs) 14:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - abc coverage, imdb write up, significant actors attached —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.83.140 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * response to anonymous unsigned - Local ABC affiliate coverage (brief); anybody, including me, can have an IMDb listing - see ; and you don't "catch" notability by working with notable people. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for anonymous unsigned I notice that your IP address is in a range which has been used by Raymondlaw, and also that you have no edits outside pages edited by Raymondlaw. Are you by any chance Raymondlaw? If so then you have now made three !votes. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the argument to delete the page has been made several times over and the creator's filibustering does not endear him to other users. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:19, 4 October 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.