Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Side of the Game


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Side of the Game

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

No assertion of notability on this "independent" film "due for release at the end of 2009". Google results only in the home page of the film. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. SGGH ping! 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Unfortunately I did not finish editing and in response to your attack please see the following links.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1331112/

http://www.othersideofthegame.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjVk22rPaQw

http://www.galwayfilmfleadh.com/pr_2009.php?p=saturday/other_side_of_the_game

Please give me some credibility and allow my page to go forward. Thanks keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an attack, this is a discussion about whether the article meets the requirements for a wikipedia entry. To me, this page looks like promotion for not yet notable film. None of the references you have given is "independent of the source.". Delete without prejudice. Hairhorn (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But why is it considered a promotion? I have seen many references like this.It is just information about the film, the production and actors. What can i do to change it and make it acceptable? keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem is just that it's not notable, it's not really a question of how the article is written. Hairhorn (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-X#cite_note-0 is this notable at the time it was written? keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perrier%27s_Bounty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorelei_(film)

Also how are these notable? Should I post more examples so i can understand? KEEP
 * You can comment as much as you like, but you can only make one keep or delete vote. --Smashvilletalk 19:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ok Im very new to this so no offense intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply because another entry exists does not mean it meets the notability criteria either. See wp:otherstuffexists. Hairhorn (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No i meant how are those links notable because from what you are saying they should be deleted also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I suspect that, based on the information given in the article, and which I could find, the subject was not notable enough for Wikipedia. We aren't attacking you, merely sampling consensus to decide whether this topic is notable enough. Also, please remember to sign your comments using ~ and link to other articles using article name rather than URLs. Stay cool, and let us work out the best way forward. SGGH ping! 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * delete fails NFF, and GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NF Gosox5555 (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. To the article creator, Wikipedia is not here to "give" you "some credibility" or help you promote yourself. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shawn do not attack me personally and say sorry. Im not looking for "credibility" as I am not the "director" of the film and my income does not depend on it any way. Therefore, I do not believe you are making a valid or constructive point here. You know as well as I do, there are many pages on the wikipedia site that are not "notable". I have emailed user SGGH and explained that the industry screening was held as the academy of contemporary arts in London last Thursday 6th august (and Wikipedia did not make this happen). I do believe however that British films should get more credibility and that there are talented directors out there who are worth talking about and although it may not be of interest to you, it may be interesting to people like myself. I also mentioned that once I do received reviews i will add this to the article. ~
 * 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.