Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How My Dad Killed Dracula


 * 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. Article does not meet notability guidelines. No additional reliable source coverage has been provided. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How My Dad Killed Dracula

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

Short film not listed on IMDB; article created by user with same name as director; no assertion of notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OPINIONS
 * Delete For something to simply exist is not enough for it to have an article here. It needs to be notable WP:N. If the film IS showing at festivals soon you can try to recreate the page after such sources that verify WP:NOTFILM are found.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * delete - WP:NOTFILM sounds a lot like WP:MUSIC - something a few people made up one day. We can instead judge this article by WP:N. If no reliable important third-party independent sources have published any in-depth articles on this film, then the subject is not notable and the article has to go. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:N, Wikipedia is not obliged to cover every single movie that comes out. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦   Talk  10:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

DISCUSSION WITH PRIMARY EDITOR, ETC

How My Dad Killed Dracula

http://farm.imdb.com/media/rm2772734208/nm2684485

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1731421/bio

http://allocine.imdb.com/media/rm777752576/nm1731421?slideshow=1

http://sposca.pbwiki.com/Skye+Borgman

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1534043

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1534043/bio

http://audience.withoutabox.com/films/hmdkd

Here are several links to information regarding HMDKD that I did not create. The IMDB credit is not the only verification that this film exists. Because of IMDB's rules my film needs to screen at a festival before a credit is given. That is happening soon. However, these links will show that the film truly does exist beyond my self promotion of it. All facts contained therein are true and verifiable. If you need more information I'm happy to provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysoleil (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First off,

Hello.

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm learning as I go. I appreciate your fact checking and I want to do everything I can to veryify the films validity. I've provided several sources showing that this film is as notable as any other film. It will have a screening soon but why does screening at a festival constitute tangibility or actuality or notability? I have a copyright from the US copyright office for the film. If I scan that and put it online as a JPG will that help?
 * Comment As I said before, it doesn't matter if the film "exists", The policy guideline of WP:NOTFILM says that a film needs to meet certain criteria to be included. This criteria is as follows:


 * 1) The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
 * 2) The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
 * 3) *Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
 * 4) *The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
 * 5) *The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
 * 6) *The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
 * 7) The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
 * 8) The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
 * 9) The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

If your film meets any of these criteria it will be included and not contested. I apologize for pasting the guideline here, but I thought it was a good way to make sure it was read in this instance.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also The policy guideline specifically states that IMDB is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS to find out what is generally accepted.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One More Thing If you are the director of the film you may want to read WP:COI as editing the article may be a conflict of interest violation if not handled with care.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Since receiving this deletion status I've contacted Variety magazine. They are going to include a listing of my film in their upcoming production listings on Monday. I assume that will fall into the category of Publication of at least two non-trivial articles. I'm working on the second. That's the best I can do for now to satisfy your historically notable requirements. I can have those publications provided by mid next week. I would appreciate the information not being deleted until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.26.92 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this listing going to include non-trivial coverage or some kind of commentary about the production? Both are required.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The cited guideline, WP:NOTFILM is just a guideline, and not a policy, and purports to be the consensus of a few Wikipedians who chose to discuss it on its talk page. Out of the few who commented on it, several objected to it. It also says it "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I have not followed the development of that guideline, but it appears rather focussed on a 5 year period having passed. Do we wait 5 years before having articles about murders or disappearances such as those of Natalee Holloway or the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann? Not at all. The guideline would bear closer examination by a broader cross-section of Wikipedians. I have no strong opinion either way so far as this particular film is concerned. Edison (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are no hard and fast rules, but they're a good starting placing when we're discussing an unreleased short film by a director of questionable notability, especially when the article is written by the director himself.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2008 (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.