Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metel el Helm


 * 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. It is admitted there are no sources yet; deleted but permit recreation when there are. Userification optional. DGG (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Metel el Helm

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:NF, unless the production is notable in itself, WP:CRYSTAL applies and this unreleased movie is not notable for Wikipedia yet. It may be once it is released, so rather than deletion, I actually propose moving this to userspace so it can be moved back when released and notability can be established. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy. There are no reliable sources covering this film. - Whpq (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not delete I really think that the article mustn't be removed for the following reasons:
 * 1-The movie is already very known locally (In Lebanon).
 * 2-The movie is record-breaking ,the production team broke a world-wide record and is considered to enter the Guinness world Records(Still awaiting a reply)
 * 3-As the movie isn't released yet,the media coverage is very minor (a couple of interviews). A press conference will be held before the movie is released and links to the interviews will be posted on the page.
 * 4-The Wikipedia page is being consulted daily by visitors who have heard of the movie and want to know more about it and  it's record-breaking fact.As Wikipedia's goal is to spread knowledge and information,I respectfully believe that the article must remain accessible to the public.I know some of the people who worked in this production so I can always add new categories to this article and already people are asking questions about the movie ,I will speak with the production team so we can redirect them to this Wikipedia article (along with the official movie site.)

Although the article lacks a (or some) picture(s),there are some posted on the movie's website and on the movie's fan group on Facebook.I will try to get one from the production and I will add it to the article.

Thank you for your understanding and support,

sincerely

Georges Halim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * — Lebnan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Given the information above, can you substantiate item #1 with reliable sources documenting this popularity? With respect to #2, the fact that you submitted something to Guiness does nto establish ntoability.  With respect to #3, that is a reason in favour of deletion.  As for item #4, wikipedia is not a web host.  That's what your web site is for. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you again for your fast reply. Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The movie is notableI appreciate your reply but I have some clarifications ,concerning Item #1:I can't add reliable sources now documenting the movie's popularity because there is no press coverage yet ,the popularity resides in mouth to mouth advertisement. The post-production has ended and the movie will be soon published.ABout Item #2:I am sure that Wikipedia must have articles about  world records in the movie domains as it covers various other branches ,[Item #3 ]:As I have mentioned earlier, I will provide you with links to reliable sources as soon as possible.Concerning item  #4 WIkipedia is an encyclopedia and one of an encyclopedia's goals is to provide readers with information ,I don't mean it being a web host but a source of knowledge.


 * Delete I'm afraid that 'word of mouth' notability doesn't count for much at Wikipedia. Movies not yet released are only classed as notable when they are are by Spielberg or someone like that. Christopher Karkafi - I can only find here and Facebook. Metel el Helm - once again Facebook and a forum in Arabic which gives a mention in a list of Lebanese films (and possibly on a rather odd 'search' site that I haven't worked out yet). Not yet notable, sorry. When the film is released and getting audiences, try again. Wikipedia is for recording, not promoting. We can't help you onto the ladder. We can record you when you've gone up a few rungs. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish you could move the article or something so it wouldn't have to be rewritten.--Lebnan (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy I respect your opinion for deletion and I am sure that the movie will have an article very soon that won't be deleted .As I noticed,you need enough proof that the movie is being made.
 * You can. It can be moved to userspace, or simply copy-pasted by yourself. Moving maintains the edit history and is thus preferable. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are you deleting the article?? what does the notabilty have to do with the movie.Everything on wikipedia is notable???--Joe abiabed (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the movie does not meet the inclusion criteria for a wikipedia article. In particular, please read WP:NFF. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't you track the number of visitors per day and judge then whether you delete the article or not.Then you can judge the notability,if you don't have an administrator living in Lebanon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the same as popularity. General notability is established by coverage in independent, reliable sources. Per the analysis of the links in the article, there are currently no reliable sources cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure if they can or can't, but can't you see the potential for error? (To put it politely...) The number of clicks a site on the net gets can affect revenue from advertising - there are people sitting there ckicking sites to boost this. I'm not saying you would do this, but some well-meaning person might decide to boost the figures without asking you. An admin living in the Lebanon? Could be. But admins have to be neutral wherever they live. We judge notability by what we can find out. And once again, we are NOT here to help promote something or someone and we have policies that have been agreed. Everything on Wikipedia is notable? No. You may find an article consisting of "Shane is the MOST AWWWWWWSSSSSSOOOOMMMESTTTT person EVAHHHHH!". Normally these get deleted very quickly, but some clever ones get through - for a time. If you spot one - tag it, please. Peridon (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that if you had an admin in Lebanon he would be not neutral ,I just meant that he would affirm that the movie is known locally, if not ,you must wait for the future references . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice and allow return when sources toward notability can be shown.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  In my opinion ,wait for a couple of weeks(3 weeks maximum),if some references were posted,leave the article ,if not userfy .We will give the article a chance till mid-april. It wouldn't do any harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, only one !vote per customer. As for waiting, please see WP:CRYSTAL.  As for not doing any harm, please see WP:NOHARM. -- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am for not deleting the post. Lebnan,if they decided to delete it, they will surely be an article for the movie after a couple of weeks because I was told that it will be released soon and I guess Wikipedia keeps the article if the movie is genuine and notable.Several audio-visual students in the university worked for it and I asked jad about the movie yesterday ,he said that the post-production is in it's final stages so a bit of patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim malan (talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * — Karim malan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete but allow userfication. The article fails to present any independent evidence that this unreleased film is notable. We can reconsider after the film is released. —C.Fred (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Whpq ,I was on an edge,I just deleted my earlier post.Thanks for your understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrative comment. The deleted comment and related reply from User:Whpq were not discussing the merits of the article, and in my opinion, removal has no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the article it's 100% notable,I don't know why nobody added references,I will try to find some .--TheGodMothers (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * — TheGodMothers (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please find references...and indicate which notability (film) criteria it meets, since it doesn't appear to meet any of them. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 14 March 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.