Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miracle at Donna (2012 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Miracle at Donna (2012 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM.  ttonyb (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet appropriate notability criteria; also WP:CRYSTAL. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - admitted publicist trying to pimp his client's non-existent film. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With respects, Mike... the article has sources and a hope to meet WP:NF (though it appears to fail WP:NFF). Unless we find blatant copyvio, or that it is a repeat of a nearly identical article deleted through a deletion discussion, or that its author is a banned editor, a "speedy" is inapropriate... and barring these condiations, not even for COI.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – If this is Speedy deleted, then Back from Iraq (2005 film) probably should be Speedy deleted as well.  ttonyb (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have no connection with stephen. I don't know who stephen is. In fact, the producer asked me to edit the bias out of the article, and sent it to me in its entirety. It had a lot of adjectives, and talked too much about the producer (director-writer) and none about any of the rest of the production crew, which I will amend, if I can figure out what wikipedia wants done. So I have cleaned up the text somewhat, but that bot is still floating around on the verge of deleting this. Please advise.


 * Frank tells me they are filming. I am not a publicist. Also, this film has no connection whatsoever with the iraq movie other than that I know both of the producers.  I tried to post the Iraq movie as practice before I posted this one, just as a favor to Nancy Fulton (whose political views I do not agree with anyway, not that that matters.) It would be appreciated if you do not discuss these in the same breath.   There is apparently plenty of documentation for both of these movies, (Miracle at donna is filming.)  Mike, why so hostile?  Freelance-writer-editor (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelance-writer-editor (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * reply - the version I saw was created and nurtured by User:Stevenpublicist, whose specialty seems to be advertising 1211 Entertainment and its products. I'm hostile to shameless publicists, not to my fellow freelance writer-editors! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No doubt. I saw that draft. It made my English teacher synapses shrivel. Look, I also cut his bio down to the minimum if you want to look at that. I'm going to sleep. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – What is your relation to Frank Aragon and the film Miracle at Donna. I ask because within minutes of pointing out that the film's website indicated the film was in pre-production. (see }, the website was changed to reflect completely sometime different.  ttonyb  (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I edit for a third party, (and ghostwrite.) Frank contacted this third party and asked me if I would edit the article because he had been told it was biased. (It was.)  Does this really matter? I have no connection with the movie, the production company, or any one involved with the movie. I have done some writing and editing for a friend of the producer. Apparently bias is not the only issue. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * reply - the fact that a movie is in production does not in any way make it notable. Where is the requisite substantial coverage in impartial reliable third-party sources? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON.. and I encourage the author User:Freelance-writer-editor to read that essay, as well as he pay close attention to WP:COI and WP:NFF, and even visit my own in-work essay at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines. Once the production actually begins principle filming and gets coverage, or is released and receives reviews and coverage, it might well be welcomed back... but it's just not appropriate yet. I do encourage the author to request that the article be moved into a userspace such as User:Freelance-writer-editor/workspace/Miracle at Donna so that he might seek inpit from other editors and continue work.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: moving to a user space until it is done...Freelance-writer says SHE would definitely agree with that. Much better than having to save it elsewhere and repost it and start from scratch again. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The closer of this discussion will note your request for userfication.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment- Why is this project added to a deletion cue? I thought wikipedia was a serious encyclopedia about everything. This project is listed on IMDb which makes it legitimate. Any explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Dee Ford (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Wikipedia is not about everything. It is about  verifiable notable subjects.  "Legitimacy" has nothing to do with inclusion.  As indicted above,  the film lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance and appears to fail WP:NOTFILM.  ttonyb  (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can this please go to a page where I can work on it until it is released or has had adequate press? There are other individuals involved with the film who could be researched as well as the Donna background story, which actually may be a disambiguation. Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Trust me... The closer of this discussion will have read through the discussion and will note your request for userfication... but usually these discussions run about a week, so be patient. And remember, you can always ask for help and advice from other editors.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:40, 11 February 2011 (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.