Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 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. Moved to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 film). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Only sources are unreliable; the variety and imdb are both based on user submissions and the accuracy of their content cannot be verified, absolutely no proof that the people listed as the cast are even in the film. The film is the first production by a non-notable film company, google does not reveal any basis behind the information listed. Terrillja talk  19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The film sounds awesome. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 film). IMDB is jumping off point for research elsewhere. Minimal surces are becoming availble .  Slated release fate is April 2010, not the 2009 as article is titled. Article is simply premature. I'd be glad to work with the author. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like you already have a lot on your plate. Wouldn't it be better for you to focus on creating fewer quality articles rather than amassing an insurmountable heap of pages in your userspace? Many of those articles were userfied several months ago with some even in 2008 . Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Insurmountable heap? You're judging me, my work, and my efforts to improve the encyclopdia?  Sorry... but my plate is my plate... and I was not aware there was some deadline in how long an editor must wait until able to return an article to main space... and am a bit surprised you suggest that I abandon articles that might one day serve the project. Perhaps since your plate is so empty, you'll take this article under your own wing to work on as sources become available, and then bring back it back yourself as a quality article? If no, then I again state that I shall be happy to take it and work with the author. But thank you for advising I do less. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith, I am not judging you. There is no deadline per se, but userfied articles are not meant to sit idle indefinitely (see here and point 3 here) and I have seen admins deny userfication requests because someone's userspace already has a fair amount of ex-articles waiting for attention. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good faith, yes. Your statement amassing an insurmountable heap, and then your showing that you have looked carefully through all my projects, and your suggestion that I do less... seemed a bit judgemental. That I wish to presevre the history, improve the article with the author's help, and then return it when appropriate, will then require either a DRV or at least the blessing of the deleting admin... and having the before and after will make their decision easier and avoid calls of CSD:G4 recreation.  Efforts to improve the project, even when sometimes difficult, are never insurmountable... they just require work. I do not believe an admin will refuse my request to userfy, as I have pretty fair record of being able to revive the presumed dead and so improve the project. And again, you seem to have an empty plate, so why not help?  Thank you.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting you do less; I'm suggesting you don't spread yourself so thin. You have a lot of articles that haven't been touched in months. Userspace isn't meant to be used as a quasi-mainspace where content deleted from the main encyclopedia can remain forever, and that's precisely what you're using it for. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse my raised eyebrows, but it is in precisely those assumptions toward my purpose...remarks made without your possibly knowing my thoughts, where you seem to judge my work and my dedication to Wikipedia. Is it possible we have such difffering iterpretations of WP:DEADLINE and WP:WIP? That an article might take more than 10 days or 10 weeks or 10 months for the sourcing to become available for its improvement, is a determination and a choice I make toward improving the project.  Improving that which others thought unimprovable is a quite satisfying way to contribute.  I appreciate your concern, but please do not feel obligated to watch over my shoulder and make a private determination of what and how I should contribute. So please stop making incorrect assumptions. And again, and since you do not have a full plate, why not help? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of what you're saying applies. You're misusing userspace. It's not meant to be some sort of graveyard for articles deemed unfit for the encyclopedia proper. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Three times I have asked if you might care to help because your own plate is so empty. Three times you have ignored that request and denigrated the manner in which I contribute to the project. Your now quite specific accusation that I am misusing userspace is a much unappreciated and quite pointed assumption of bad faith that pushes the boundaries of WP:CIV almost past the breaking point. Please cease. I said I was willing to work with the author in bringing this article back to mainspace when notabilitry can be asserted and shown. I still am, whether you approve of my efforts to rescue and improve articles, or not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I think if the community decides an article should be deleted then it should... actually be deleted. Userfication allows for the retention of that content and makes an end-run around all the policies regarding mainspace inclusion. That's why I am not going to help you.
 * You are misusing userspace. See the links I posted above and this applies as well. I commend your efforts to rescue content and work with new editors, even if I disagree with the logic behind userfication of deleted material, and I realize "indefinitely" (in terms of archival time) is not given a concrete definition in any of the relevant guidelines (although there have been attempts before, see here), but you have articles that have been sitting there for a long time. All I'm saying is that those articles require your attention and that it might not be a good idea to add more to your workload. That's it. I don't think your motives are malicious and I'm not criticizing you as an editor. This thread has long since lost relevance to the actual AFD and is getting lengthy, so if you would like to continue this discussion please come by my talk page. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion either way on the Deletion, but I have added a couple sources to the article, and I am very happy that someone has stepped forward to offer to work on it. Michael's offer to "incubate" the article until such a time as he can better-source the article, fill it out, and present it back to Wikipedia in an improved shape should be applauded. We should all be so willing to help other editors and their contributions. I have to say I find Doctorfluffy's apparent objection to this to be truly offensive. All editors should have as their primary purpose here the addition of content and the improvement that which is already there. We should not be here only to slap other editor's hands, delete things, quote home-made rules, and play Wikicop. Dekkappai (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No sources to indicate notability or verify information. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/Userfy Sources such as Variety seem fine - just needs putting on hold until nearer release. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy I am not aware of any limits timewise to work on articles, of course anyone can move it into their own space at any time to work on. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Preserving the GFDL history for the eventual DRV seems appropriate. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Userify, or keep Perhaps when someone has written an article for an expected event that does not justify putting in mainspace yet, we need a specific holding area, so people can check. Or perhaps a tag--userified until month, year. Anyone can implement that tag.    DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Is there a reason major media sources would list it at all if it wasn't notable?  D r e a m Focus  15:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:14, 28 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.