Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Brooklyn


 * 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New Brooklyn

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

Yet to be released film with no assertion of notability. COI is present as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Article fails WP:MOVIE; we're not a crystal ball here. ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me!  /  Talk to me!  ←at≈:→ 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Remake once its released if anything. --Banime (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements to article. WP:Crystal does not apply as principle filming has finished. Have cleaned up article per mos and set links back to notability on Spanish Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How is the film notable enough? Even if it was finished, there's nothing in the article to indicate how notable it is.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Expert needed from WIKI Spanish With aplolgies, I found enough Spanish articles that seemed lengthy and in-depth that I must assume good faith in notability. I also learned that some of these actors are notable on Wiki Spanish but have no corresponding article on Wiki English. So I cannot presume, simply because I do not read Spanish that the longer non-English articles do not speak toward notability. You'll have to have a Spanish reading editor do a web search for and translation of the lengthier reviews. My point above was that the assumption of WP:Crystal was incorrect. And with respects, not "asserting" a notability does not mean that an article is not notabile, as all that is required is that notability exist. That "assertion" in an article is not a requisite and is often confused with WP:Peacock.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.   — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per adherence to WP:MOVIE. Film fulfills criteria for WikiProject Films/Future films; it has completed principal photography and has been confirmed by notable sources. This article is published as a fact and not as a promotion or original thought. The film has been shot with notable performers and it is well documented in widely read publications, therefore to delete the article would be a refutation of a factual, noteworthy event. -Newbrooklyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbrooklyn (talk • contribs) 03:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. And I'm sure your opinion isn't influenced by the fact that you yourself are affiliated with the film?--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: and I have done a cleanup to remove possible COI and POV from the author's original article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per User talk:ESanchez013, I agree with User:Newbrooklyn that this AfD constitutes lazy editing.  More peer, less boss. --Una Smith (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Since you're using ESanchez013's talk page and are accusing us of being lazy, I thought it would be fair to bring up his comment as well. "It was not my job to make your Conflict of Interest a notable piece of inclusion. If that were the case, anyone could write a little teeny tiny stub and sit back sipping Coke and say "Ha! Let those other suckers do all the work!" If you wanted attention, you should've either told me what you wanted done to see if I (or someone else) could help you, or just stuck Wiki tags 'till the cows come home. I don't believe I should (and maybe I'm wrong for this) help out Conflict of Interests. So, please, don't come here and say "this idiot doesn't care about my article; hang him". Look for sources yourself before introducing this article into the namespace"
 * And for the record, I did a google search for "New Brooklyn" "Cannucciari" and I came across 50 results, and that's including all the various IMDB mirrors and whatnot. I nominated it for deletion because of the blatant COI and the few sources available to me. I have to ask how notable a film is if someone affiliated with it had to be the one to start it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe he got tired of waiting to be noticed (chuckle). Seriously though, I agree that writing about one's own film is as bad as writing one's own autobiography... but once an article is out of a userspace it become's Wiki's... and if it notability can be shown and the article can be cleaned up and sourced, then Wiki would be improved if we try. And for what's its worth a search for "New Brooklyn, Blanca Lewin" was more succesful.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By twelve hits. I got 62 when I clicked on the last page (I know it seems a lot when you first click on it, but once you go further, the number of links shorten for some strange reason...)--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes our requirements now. rootology ( C )( T ) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (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.