Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinetiq


 * 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. Userfying can be considered if somebody does want to improve it and asks for an userfy.  Sandstein  06:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Kinetiq

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Contested prod. Slovenian film. Much of the article is devoted to the plot, and the critical reception is only mentioned in vague terms ("many critics..."). No sources, and I can't find anything on Google. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 08:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and return to its author. We have difficulties in finding sourcing for Slovenian films certainly and, as this is a new film, we can give this brand new article back to to its creator as a userspace draft while he finds and adds the required sources. Allow it back once issues are addressed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, no need for userfying. No notability whatsoever. This is an amateur short film made by school kids, the "many critics..." part probably refers to their classmates. — Yerpo Eh? 06:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ?? If it had notablity, I would not have suggested deletion, and am in no way stating that it be kept in article space. How did you make your determination that is was "an amateur short film made by school kids", and why would you suggest that a user not be allowed to work on an article in userspace?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, watch it yourself and then decide what's the point of hosting this description here, article space or not. — Yerpo Eh? 20:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An amteurish film effort, no doubt... no matter who made it. And it does not belong in article space, but I had already said as much. But as EVERY editor started as newb, why would you suggest that a user not be allowed to practice on an article in userspace... even a crap article? Do you not think working in a sandbox can help a new editor improve even if he has chosen a topic that may never be suitable for mainspace?  Even a totally awful work-in-progress as a userspace draft is per WP:UPYES and does not violate WP:UPNOT (unless that work violates the guides for using user sandboxes). User sandboxes or workspaces are created as places with fewer rules and policies than other pages on Wikipedia. In a workspsce, a user does not have to follow the Manual of Style or reach community consensus before making changes.  However, workspaces must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks, civility, and copyrights still apply.
 * Do I think the article will ever be returned to mainspace? Nope. Does that mean we should prevent a new user from practicing and getting better?  Nope.  Do I think a new editor might benefit from practicing in his sandbox? Likely. And if the thing sat in userspace for a couple months without being worked on at all, then I could see an argument about WP:NOTWEBHOST as applicable and would Mfd it myself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the text on the page Kinetiq is a blatant promotion ("So, basically these are just minor flaws and a fair trade for such a brilliant film"??) and clearly WP:UPNOT. In itself, this doesn't mean that the tone couldn't be improved, but the subject itself is far from notable and I don't see a point. The user can choose another, non-contentious subject for practicing if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia, but his editing pattern so far suggests that promoting the clip was his goal, not building an encyclopedia. — Yerpo Eh? 11:13, 23 July 2012 (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.