Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Men Wear Pink


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Real Men Wear Pink

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability - appears to fail WP:NFILMS, with no gnews hits and ghits quickly going into database range. Article created by user with same name as director of movie. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sufficient sources are supplied to verify that the film meets notability guidelines at this time. I did a quick google search and didn't find anything that would substantiate notability. According to IMDb, this film is currently released only on the internet; a speculative theatrical release date does not help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP Real Men Wear Pink is a motion picture provided for free on its official site, the release of this movie is a new age distribution strategy which allows for more viewers to help the process of the independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.87.42.115 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of the movie isn't the issue; the question is whether it meets the inclusion guidelines of this website. Wikipedia is not here to help the process for the independent, but to document what reliable sources have to say about "notable" topics. If there are no reliable sources discussing this topic, it does not yet belong here. Please review WP:NFILMS. If we are not able to verify that the film meets that guideline, the article is not likely to be retained. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 keep We are aware wikipedia is not here to help the the independent, but the process of distribution for motion pictures has changed to online distribution. The author is not promoting the site, nor promoting the movie. However, the author is providing information on a valid project that can be viewed at the request of the great people at wikipedia. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.87.42.115 (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a working version of the IMDb link - not that it tells us much of interest except that the release date is "11 December 2011". I rather feel that WP:CRYSTAL might come in here. Peridon (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Signing posts Please sign your posts with ~ . Thanks. Peridon (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note - you can only say 'keep' or 'delete' once. You can 'Comment' all you like. Peridon (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the author able to provide independent reliable sources that verify that the film meets our inclusion guidelines? That's what articles on films require on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

can you please tell me what other reliable resources you need, beside the Internet Movie Database, and its offical site, most projects only have these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.213.142 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Guidelnes on what is required to establish notability for a film can be found here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This does not meet your requirements for maintaining an article on Wikipedia. However, the film is developing a new landscape of distribution. Its available for free online, this is perhaps worldwide distribution. If you will kindly go to the website and see for yourself, this film will change the direction of moviemaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.87.42.115 (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is nothing new about a film being available for free online. Can we assume that all of the unsignedIP messages are from the same editor, the only editor who has voted for Keep, and that the editor has admitted that the article does not meet standards, and WP:SNOWBALL this article? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if the film will change the direction of moviemaking, I'm afraid that it's not Wikipedia's goal to be there at the groundfloor. We are by our nature always going to be at the tail end of a trend, since our job is to document what others say about something. As our policy at WP:FUTURE notes: "While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." We play catchup once the cultural norms do change. Once the film changes the direction of moviemaking, reliable sources will comment on it, and we will be happy to host an article about it then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

'keep' for now per blank, this film has grossed over 5,000 vistiors in its first week, this is news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.213.142 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. If and or when this one gets some recognition and is verifiable in reliable sources, we might consider a return.  Okay with it being userfied to its author until such time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No gnews hits, so apparently, no, it's not news. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (Thought I'd !voted already...) per Schmidt et al. Peridon (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete current refs, and a google search, reveal no signs of notability at this time. if an admin wishes to userfy the content to the article creator, with the stipulation that we would need much more, and would likely have to wait until december's release, to recreate, im ok with that. I cant even tell if this is of interest to the LGBTQ community. if it was, it would surely have gotten some attention by now if it was any good, as the name would have gotten it some attention.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: "5,000 vistiors in its first week," is not as notable as many youtube videos that far surpass that number. While the phrase "Real Men Wear Pink" may have notability the film clearly does not.AerobicFox (talk) 08:15, 7 March 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.