Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am (2010 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   Userfy.  — fetch ·  comms   00:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I Am (2010 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a film. The prod was removed, and the following sources have been added:
 * This brief mention of the film
 * This press release
 * This one-sentence blurb on a blog. Not a strong source at all.

Ultimately, this is WP:CRYSTAL, borderline advert for a non-notable sunday school film. I'm more than happy to userify it for the creators, but it doesn't have encyclopedic merit. tedder (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy Per nom. BE——Critical __Talk 04:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy as WP:TOOSOON. Let the film have its October 2010 release and then perhaps let it back once the author adds reviews and/or critical commentary for the film. Big search headache caused by the director having a common name and the simple title of "I Am". Yikes! The number of false positives are staggering.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be notable yet and not enough reliable sources. There may be sources as soon as it is released but for now, delete. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also recommend userfication at least until notability has been established, I'd be more than happy to help. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose the fact that 20th Century Fox has JUST acquired the film for release doesn't mean anything. It would be really generous of all critical parties to give the movie a chance.  It's insane that because a movie was financed independently and that it's in the faith genre that it has no merit.  We just got started publicizing this movie and plenty of press is coming, but if you guys want to crush it without giving it a chance, then we'll post it up later.  Are we the first movie to ever post an article before release?  I thought that articles were supposed to be DEVELOPED over time.  Open minds would help.Stefanhajek  —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Userfy. Since the film has not been confirmed as notable yet, but it may be confirmed as notable soon, keeping the article in userspace for the time being will make it easy to restore the article if its notability turns out to be true. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy More a matter of "too soon" than any chance of it being a hoax to be sure - userspace is ideal for such. Collect (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy might be the best solution, per the above comments. It seems that WP:COI and WP:PROMO may also apply here. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the choice is made to delete this by the WikiPolice, then so be it, but I'm not taking it down or moving it based on assumptions that it's not notable. That's completely arguable, and if you're wanting to can it based on not enough references, then I shall repost it when more are available.  A little research might lead you to clearing your mind of the wild allegations that this is a hoax or spam.  I might have never posted the article on the film in the first place if I knew Wiki users were so repressive and autocratic.  This article was intended for informational purposes, not promotional, and notes to the contrary as listed come across as accusatory in nature.  I have seen plenty of other independent feature films on here with less information and fewer resources, so I'm not sure whey this film is being targeted.  It's a very hypocritical position.  I hate to have to prove you all wrong, but you have to do what you have to do.  Stefanhajek  —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC).
 * I understand that you're upset, and I'm sorry that's the case. That's actually one reason why FAQ/Organizations and WP:COI discourage people from editing articles about projects they're involved with. In this particular case, the Notability (films) policy has clear guidelines on when a film is notable enough for an article. Neither the references currently in the article, nor Google searches, are convincing people at the moment that the film meets those guidelines. People are aware that this may change, and so the "userfy" recommendations are suggesting that the administrators move this article to User:Stefanhajek/I Am (2010 film) to wait until such a change occurs. The final decision will be made by the administrators after about a week of discussion, which gives time for article improvements. However, it's worth quoting from the film notability policy: "A film may be brilliantly created and acted, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia." -- Radagast 3 (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy seems like the best idea here. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. the references given are completely inadequate to show notability, and are the best someone associated with the movie can find, so we could not do better, though i see some have tried. issues with the highly promotional style of the plot summary can be dealt with if and when the move gains notability upon church or dvd release. fixed the director link for when/if its recreated. and, of course, absolutely no prejudice to recreation upon evidence of notability. Article creator stefan hajek would make a better case for himself if he tried showing good faith towards other editors, refrained from arrogant statements that he is right and others are wrong, did not accuse editors of calling this a hoax, as no one did, and maybe showed his expertise here by editing more than the 2 articles directly related to his own financial benefit (do i need to quote scripture here?). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point that I was making is that the judgment of notability is not consistent here, as there are many independent films that I have found on Wikipedia that have way less development for content of an article, and have zero sources, yet they've remained up for quite a while. The word hoax WAS used, inferring the implication on some level.  As I said, I disagree with the idea that the film is not notable, and if it is targeted and pulled, then it will be posted again with more reliable sources as they come to light.  Good faith goes both ways, and as I'm new to this space, a little room for time to develop this further and to contribute further would have been appreciated.  It's not about financial benefit for me.  It's about art.  If I seemed up in arms, it was due to the comments calling the article an "advert for a Sunday School film" from someone who had not seen, and knows nothing about, the film.  I understand many points here, but I don't have to necessarily agree.Stefanhajek  —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC).
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument to avoid. As to the word "hoax," the only editor using it said it wasn't one. The editors saying "userfy" are hoping that the article will indeed reappear when more reliable sources exist (otherwise they'd say "delete"). WP:Notability is a term being used here with a very specific meaning. It refers to the existence of reliable sources, not to the quality of the film (see the quote I posted above). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are numerous articles on WP which are not properly sourced. they all need to be sourced, or deleted it determined to be nonnotable. articles can stay here as unsourced if someone can show notability at an afd (people sometimes spend more time defending an article as notable than actually adding references), its just not as professional and gets a "no references" tag. but radagast3 is correct, thats not an argument for this particular article to stay. we know you disagree that this film is not notable, but you are too close to it to be truly objective (youve seen it, no one else writing here has), and it simply doesnt exist as a released film yet, and has gotten no significant advance attention outside its own promotional efforts. Did you read my argument: i have no problem with this article being recreated when more sources are found, either at the time of release, or even before if they are strong enough. We are assuming good faith. if we werent, someone could decide in the spirit of meanness that you were just a spammer and permanantly block you and this film. you are not a spammer. this is a real, debatable, potential article subject, whose article at this time is in fact nothing more than advance publicity for a film being released for free to churches in a few months. "sunday school film" may be somewhat crass and snarky, but thats what it is for now, until it comes out and people have a chance to see it. if its userfied, just hold onto the material, trim out the overly promotional tone and excessive summary, add references as you find them (you will have the patience to do it, given the director and film name are hard to search for, and i presume you will have access to film company info on notable critiques/reviews and news articles (NOT press releases, please)). when you think you have enough, you could drop a note on my talk page, i would give my appraisal if you like. I am a believer in WP:IGNORE, so if an interesting reason to show notability arises, thats not in the canon of reasons, i am open to having articles stay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Ok, so it's a weakly sourced, soon-to-be released christian film.  I believe in wikiland there's something called eventualism.  Just let it be and give the chance to let the flower bloom. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added some more sources and working on additional ones. Appreciate those who have been supportive, no matter what your position on this article is.  Doing the best I can to play by the rules.Stefanhajek  —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete no indication of any notability. Possibly move to Conservapedia. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2010 (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.