Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Is Mind


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Justice Is Mind

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN indie film, fails WP:NFILM and the GNG. While the article appears to have sources, anything beyond a superficial examination reveals a raft of press releases, namedrops, screening announcements, statements unsupported by the sources and other trivial mentions that fail to meet the GNG. The creation of a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to be to promote the producer and his three indie films (the other two which are at AfD), who furthermore admits his involvement with the film in edit summaries, is repeatedly reverting copyvios and removing the AfD template from the article, and has received a block for doing so; WP:COI's plainly in play.   Ravenswing   12:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 12:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 10:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are primary or just WP:PROMO. No evidence of notability from reliable sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The film has been reviewed and quoted in numerous media outlets and was theatrically released. It also meets the general notability guidelines "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." .Omicron4 (TALK) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply: As Omicron4 (the SPA creating the article) knows, the notability standards for films are quite a bit more stringent than "was theatrically released" or "been reviewed" (although he's yet to cite the reviews from the "numerous media outlets" alleged to exist).  In fact, the criterion dealing with both holds that in order to be considered notable: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."  The latter doesn't exist, and no evidence of the former has hit reliable sources save for a smattering of one-off screenings at SF conventions and college lectures.   Ravenswing   22:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply: Ravenswing's obsession and bias in getting this page deleted is obvious. If this editor bothered to look at the sources cited in the article or even bothered to do a simple Google search Ravenswing would see the numerous articles and reviews about this film. And for Ravenswing's edification the film was theatrically released. Again Ravenswing's use of the word "smattering" shows clear bias against this film. This is an editor who couldn't even interpret how Box Office Mojo reports box office receipts. Ravenswing insisted there was only one screening when in fact there was fourteen. But as Ravenswing was proven wrong now thinks the word smattering is appropriate. What is Ravenswing's obsession with this film? Just because an editor doesn't like a film doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Omicron4 (TALK) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and ZXCVBNM. Just because a film has been released doesn't make it notable. Especially with only $14K in ticket sales. Ifnord (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2018 (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.