Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myra (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. —  Aitias  // discussion 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Myra (film)

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

Notability not established, appears to be promotion for upcoming student production. JNW (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The film appears to be a student project and hasn't even been made yet. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Faikls WP:NF. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice as the future project curently fails WP:NFF. If or when it begins principal filming AND gets coverage in reliable sources, then bring it back. Too soon... too soon.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy so material is available to edit when there is principal filming (as per MICHAEL Q.) travb (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete. It's just too soon. -- Banj e  b oi   15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE So the issue here is that this article is in production, so (under your apparently intelligent eyes) you feel that no one would be interested in learning about the film?! You can't be serious.  The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to make information (correct information, I add) available to the public.  What does this say for Wikipedia's policy when they're deleting an article about a film because it is still "in production?!"  I'm sorry, but I'm sure there are A LOT of people out there that would still be interested in reading about the page and if our film's page and the correct information posted on that page is causing this much of an issue with Wikipedia, then I strongly have underminded a credibly-reliable source.  Feel free to respond back, I'm sure your claims will make much more sense than mine. Camper2207 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Michael Campanizzi
 * The film does not pass WP:NF! Schuym1 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability?! That's exactly what I've been defending!  Try this out, show me how we have less notability when this film is coming out (being "released") in 2013: Boyhood (film).  Or this one about a (quote) "planned film": John Carter of Mars (film).  There's these as well: King of the Elves (film) and Newt (film).  Maybe Wikipedia should take a step back and stop trying to promote themselves by only allowing BIG BUDGET COMPANIES to post films-in-the-process pages. Camper2207 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi
 * The movies you mention have either been discussed in reliable newspapers or are already shooting (or both, remember creating cartoons while done with computers nowadays still takes ages to complete). "Boyhood" in particular is a film by a notable person the creation of which is particular noteworthy because it's rare for a piece of fiction to be shot over a period of 12 years using the same actor (instead of casting several people for the role). - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But you're not doing a good job of it. The article does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Other stuff exists is not a good reason to keep this. If you think that the other ones should be deleted, nominate them for AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be deleted, do you not understand that?! Despite only being in development, those films have just as much right as we do to have a page!  Is it our fault that we're not Disney or 20th Century Fox?  Because The 2380 Project or Militia Hill Entertainment isn't some nationally known production company (yet), I guess that's a good reason why Wikipedia should forbid their films to have a page.  WIKIPEDIA IS HOW PEOPLE GET THEIR INFORMATION THESE DAYS!  WHY WOULD YOU FORBID THEM FROM GETTING JUST THAT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR MOVIE?! Camper2207 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi
 * The internet is the way people get their information. Not every single bit of information needs to go into Wikipedia. If you want to inform people about the film, creating a website and properly promoting it would be the way to go. - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND ENCYCLOPEDIAS ARE FOR NOTABLE TOPICS. THE ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES. Schuym1 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not have the right to have an article on Wikipedia about a non-notable film. Schuym1 (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same with the articles that you mentioned if they don't get improved. Schuym1 (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that? Schuym1 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do understand that, but what I don't understand is why they have a "Details will change as the release date approaches and more information becomes available." logo at the top of their page, when ours is up for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camper2207 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That "details may change" notice is placed on ALL articles about films thathave not yet been released. It indicates that cast/crew/script/production schedule are mutable. That notice is seperate from whether the film actually has enough coveage in sources indpendent of the project to warrant an article in the first place. That would require an article or a review or an interview. Listings in outside locations may provide WP:verification, but not neccessarily proof of notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles about future films are alright if they have significant coverage in reliable sources. If you search for reliable sources and you can't find significant coverage, you can nominate them for AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So I guess the "Big Cartoon DataBase" qualifies as a reliable source? Maybe in wikipedia's eyes. Camper2207 (talk)Campanizzi  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC).
 * It qualifies as a reliable source, but it is not significant coverage because it is just like TV.com and IMDB. Schuym1 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please explain to me why King of the Elves has a "Details will change as the release date approaches and more information becomes available." at the top of their page and ours (much farther into production than that film) has a deletion notice. Camper2207 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi
 * Like I said before, if someone can't find reliable sources with significant coverage (as in multiple like WP:NF and the other guidelines say), they can nominate the article for AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. All the sources link to people or organizations related to the production which means sources are not independent. I accept use of primary sources to a certain degree for facts reliable third party sources wouldn't cover like newspapers rarely covering people's birthdays, but if the film has any sort of impact, it should be covered by newspapers or magazines. To the creator: see WP:MOVIE. There's bound to be articles about other films that also need to be deleted, but have yet to be discovered. We can have articles about films that haven't yet been shot or released as long as independent reliable sources have discussed the production like what happened prior to the release of Birth (movie) about the supposed nude scene. (sorry can't think of another example at the moment.) - Mgm|(talk) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so would it be a "significantly-reliably-independent" source if I put up our audition announcement that was in the Akron Beacon Journal, do I need to scan the cutout that I have from the newspaper? I just can't believe Wikipedia won't allow something on its site because not a lot of people know about it yet; isn't that the whole purpose of the site: for people to learn about things they didn't already know? Camper2207 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi
 * Yes, if the topic is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to your audition announcement: That is not independent of the subject because the announcement was made by the producers. Schuym1 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, fellers. I wish you luck with it and hope to see you and your work becoming notable. However, when at this stage there is only $200 in the kitty and $600 is needed for a scene, coupled with the current financial situation, I feel that there is a very good chance the film may not materialise. As to the role of Wikipedia, we're here not to promote but to record. Another point is the notability of a student production or other amateur or semi-amateur project. Wikipedia cannot record everything. I wouldn't expect the film work I've taken part in the production of to merit a place here. When your film is released and playing in cinemas off campus, you'll find an article appearing without you having to do anything. Hope you get there. And hope you understand why we aren't here to help you. That's up to you. Peridon (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, first and foremost I would like to apologize to everyone on this page because there must be something wrong with me: I do not and will probably NEVER understand the grounds that everyone is claiming our page not to follow. I don't quite understand why it is such a detrimental thing to Wikipedia to have information about a low-budget, lesser-known film on its site for people who are and will become interested to learn more about it.  I have always thought that was Wikipedia's purpose, to teach people about things they didn't already know, but apparently I have been mistaken; it is only the widely-recognized, big-named pages that are permitted usage on Wikipedia's all-mighty website.  With that said, I have added a few NON-RELATED SOURCES to our page.  Please feel free to check them all out and respond back to me with your continuous references as to why our lesser-known film should still be forbidden a page.  Hope to hear from you all soon! Camper2207 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Michael Campanizzi
 * The reason for all this notability stuff is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Schuym1 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's no wonder schools and universities won't accept it as a credible source. Camper2207 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi
 * I think that it is stupid that schools think that Wikipedia is unreliable because if there is sourced information such as from something like the New York Times, it is reliable info. If something is unsourced, then students can just not add it to their paper.  Schuym1 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, wikipedia doesn't think that wikipedia is a reliable source. Buit that's not relevant to this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To Camper2207, and as I just stated on your talk page, I have copied the entire thing to a workspace I created at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Myra (film). I am willing to work with you to help the article meet the concerns brought up in this discussion and then bring it back to main space when it is ready.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and call the author a waaahmbulance. If he can't see that John Carter of Mars (film) gets a page because a 77 year history of trying to produce one is documented by numerous sources thoroughly unrelated to the film, the production company of the film, or the film's own casting call are used as sources, then he's not going to get that we need real sources independent of the film asserting that it is notable. Myra, however, uses only those references, all of which make this a SPAM vio. ThuranX (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not only spamming, but a major WP:COI problem, as a look at the article's talk page makes clear. The impetus appears to be the promotion of the endeavor, not the dissemination of information on a subject whose notability is established. Surprised this is still open... JNW (talk) 01:59, 12 January 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.