Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable documentary film that seems to be unreleased and extremely limited in coverage, WP:TOOSOON BOVINEBOY 2008 13:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was actually moved to the draftspace back in October per this AfD discussion. I thought this sounded familiar. So far it looks like it has most of the same issues as it did last time, in that it hadn't yet released and that nobody has really covered it at all so far. I'll do a little more digging, but offhand I think that re-creating the article is a little premature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Now something I just noticed about this particular article: this was created days after the close of the previous AfD. It was also created under a new name, which I'll be perfectly honest: this comes across as an attempt to defy the previous AfD decision by deliberately trying to keep it from getting detected. There was absolutely no reason for this to be re-added to the mainspace at all, let alone under a different title. The decision made for the movie when it was titled "Disconnect" is the same decision for the film under its different title. A different title doesn't mean that the decision made by the prior admin is no longer valid. Here's what I suggest: we merge the histories of the two articles and leave it in the draftspace for now. I would like to deeply caution User:Tjmayerinsf about re-creating this article before it's actually received coverage. You might have meant well, but at some point acting like this makes it very hard to assume good faith on your behalf because this really does come across as a deliberate attempt to subvert the decision at the previous AfD because you want the article to be in the mainspace. I actually kind of see where you've done this on more than one occasion, as is the case with the article Tulip Time: The Rise and Fall of the Trio Lescano, where the article was deleted three times and each time you re-added the page within a few days of its deletion. Please understand, this is actually seen as incredibly disruptive because I don't see where you've ever addressed the issues brought up by the deletions for Tulip Time. This kind of makes me question your editing ethics. I understand that you're frustrated at having to prove WP:NFILM, but re-creating articles without addressing the issues posed is NOT the way to go about this. I'm sorry, but I think that this is something that should probably be brought up at WP:ANI or another applicable forum because we've blocked people for doing stuff like this in the past and you've been editing long enough to where you should be aware of rules for notability, coverage, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The author of the article is here under some duress. I noticed that this had been redirected to an implausible target and undid the redirect, since it creates a sort of unilateral "pocket deletion" without any process. I suggested that if there were notability concerns, that they should be dealt with through the usual channels (notability tag, prod, AfD). An AfD swiftly followed. I didn't know about the previous deletion history of the article, and I make no claims about whether the article should be kept or scrapped. But I'll note that the original author didn't contest the redirection (or at least, didn't much protest it), and is only defending it now because I made a stink about it. Chubbles (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete; it's short of notability. Chubbles, why did you restore the article with an admonition to follow "the usual channels", after the usual channels had decided to delete the article? And linking to copyvio isn't a good idea either. Here's the Indiegogo page, it should give a hint of what we're dealing with. bobrayner (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not know about the previous deletion history of the article. However, redirecting to an unrelated title is not the typical solution even for a repost; G4 is. If the community decides G4 is warranted here, then so be it; I don't have a dog in that fight, but it is the community ' s decision to make. The redirection was unilateral. Chubbles (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete may (or may not) be notable once released, but certainly doesn't appear to be so now. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:NF. Yes, per San Francisco Guardian an early version screened July 28, 2012. But  Kunze keeps changing the name, and the thing has not had any wider release. Allow it back only when we have reliable sources speaking about it in some detail.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:55, 8 June 2014 (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.