Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love You, I'm Sorry, and I'll Never Do It Again


 * 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. The burden of proof is on editors favouring retention of the article to show that the topic is notable. Here, we have only arguments to the effect that the topic might meet the WP:GNG (if we kept every article on possibly notable topics, well...). Closing without prejudice against recreation should significant coverage in independent reliable sources be found, feel free also to request undeletion for userfication. Skomorokh 12:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I Love You, I'm Sorry, and I'll Never Do It Again
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A user contested the prod and added a link to IMDB, a blog, and the official website. I can't find significant coverage for this. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

With no intention at all to be argumentative (I didn't even know the page existed), I've looked at the guidelines and I'm still not clear on what's notable. The film before this one, CREDO, was worthy of two articles in RECORDING magazine for how the accompaniment was created after the on-set a capella singing. This film expands that technique; to my knowledge, it's the most complex musical created in this way. If that's not notable, and its writer/director/composer being a well-reviewed but not particularly famous mystery novelist also isn't, then I agree it probably shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Thanks. Noteon (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – This article does not even come close to meeting the Notability (films) criteria … even the "official" site is just vanispamcruftisement. Happy Editing! &mdash;  21:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the official site isn't vanispamcruftisement.

It was nice to see this article appear, but if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, happy deleting! Noteon (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, nonnotable short film. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - not spam, but only weakly notable. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it weakly notable? Joe Chill (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There appears to be verifiable information about the film, and there are a few sites available, but a quick perview does not convince me that this short film has reliable sources to prove it its, in fact, notable. I assume things are notable unless proven otherwise - thus "weak keep." I'll take another look. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  01:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Eluchil404 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand and further source. The film has been in over 16 festivals.  Finding information in genre sources should not be too difficult with some digging... as not everything is listed on google news.  Wikipedia does not demand immediate improvement, nor does it demand that every article BE perfect.  Since Wikipedia is a Work In Progress and is far from being complete, I believe the article can be further improved with normal editing over a course of time.  So it's not pretty enough or sourced enough at this very minute??  Time to fix it, not delete it.  Just takes a little wiki-love. And PS: Blogcritics (odd name chosen by that online magazine) is a reliable source for this article.  The Blogcritics magazine has itself been written up in other RS, has received acclaim, recognition, and awards.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The site is not Blogcritics. The site is Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Blogcritics is not Blogspot. Sory for any confusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the link now. That was added after my comment. I was talking about Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw that you added a Blogcritics link today. Did you somehow confuse the Blogspot link as Blogcritics when you added a Blogcritics link even though I said that Blogspot was a blog on August 24? Or something? Joe Chill (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added the reference after you made your remark. Yes, Blogcritics is not Blogspot. They chose an unfortunate name for the online magazine. Sorry for any confusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * " So it's not pretty enough or sourced enough at this very minute??" Why don't you use that comment on every AFD? I've even seen you say that about articles that have been around for two years or more. Maybe you choose to use comments like that randomly. I hate it when inclusionists use that type of insulting comments in AFD. As for this very minute, it's more like a full 7 days. Wikipedia doesn't demand people to go by essays. "nor does it demand that every article BE perfect" You're right, but it demands notability. "Finding information in genre sources should not be too difficult with some digging" Another annoying comment. It's might and not should. Joe Chill (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You may disagree with my opinions, but your personal attack is unacceptable. Please cease. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a personal attack? I was told that someone calling me a troll wasn't a personal attack or someone saying that I wasn't smart because I didn't agree with their opinion wasn't a personal attack. My comment was not a personal attack and it's easy to assume that your comment is because of the many inclusionist comments that assumes bad faith on anyone that disagrees with their opinion and they still continue even when multiple users complain about it or when it gets taken to ANI. If calling someone stupid, calling someone a troll, saying that someone is attracted to feces, and assuming bad faith for no reason can be considered as not a personal attack, then maybe the whole civil rule doesn't matter much. Joe Chill (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please temper that anger when responding to people in AfD discussions. Both you and MichaelQSchmidt contribute to AfD discussions regularly, so obviously you're bound to disagree on some articles. Your earlier comment could easily be construed as a personal attack, and was at the very least incivil. Maybe go have a cup of coffe and a cigarette before posting your reply next time you start getting angry. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Maybe go have a cup of coffee and a cigarette before posting your reply next time you start getting angry." I'm 16. Also, multiple users including admins said that saying that I was stupid, saying that I'm a troll, and saying that I'm attracted to feces weren't personal attacks. What the heck is up with that? The rules obviously don't apply to everyone. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen those comments made against you, but hopefully someone has warned them about their incivility too. "Coffee and cigarette" was just my way of saying take five minutes away from wikipedia so that any agression or anger is less likely to arrive on the page in a rash moment. This is a good idea for everyone, and certainly not targeted solely at you. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They weren't warned. A few of the users that said personal attacks to me were RHaworth (feces), Michig (troll), and Edison (stupid). Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – I fail to see how either of the blog postings listed as "references" can be considered reliable sources … Alan Gary's merely mentions it in passing, which is not even close to "significant coverage"! &mdash; 138.88.43.201 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To the anonymous IP: Blogcritics Magazine is not itself a blog... just an unfortunate magazine name. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is the fact that the short musical itself can be found on various websites, and the script can also be located on the internet mean anything in regards to notification that it exists? A plot by Keith Snyder himself can be found at . --Coin945 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its existence has never been an issue … its lack of notability is the problem … Keith Snyder's blog is immaterial, because (a) it is a primary source, and (b) blogs are not considered to be WP:RS. &mdash; 138.88.43.201 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The film is only 14 minutes, not notable enough. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michael, appearing in many festivals and with many links makes it notable enough for inclusion. Ikip (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The length of a film has absolutely nothing to do with notability, compare Un chien andalou which lasts all of 16 minutes. The article admittedly needs some work, but given the festival recognition it deserves a chance.  Favonian (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Query: Uhh… where are the WP:RS cite tags for this alleged "festival recognition"? &mdash; 138.88.43.201 17:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Grumbling reply: You may have a point :) The best I could find was the ACEFEST 2007, which lists the movie as a participant, though not as a winner.  Favonian (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why does it matter whether the film won or if it just participated? It gets the same coverage...--Coin945 (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But is that "significant coverage" or just a "mention"? &mdash; 138.88.43.201 (talk) 11:46, 4 September 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.