Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxie and Martha

Roxie and Martha
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Was marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Non-notable home movie. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) Response Well, I don't know what I can say to convince you that it is a real film, but you have to admit, "Roxie and Martha" is a helluva a good idea, isn't it? Oh! And if the way to prove your existence, all of you, is to correct articles on a site nobody has ever heard of and to hurt the feelings and egos of young filmmakers everywhere, then, well, you have bigger problems than I or my multi-talented friend. This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, but it sound hilarious. Best of luck with that, you crazy filmmakers. Ian Pugh 05:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Also, that stuff about Sundance is patently false. - Vague Rant 08:34, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable (if it even exists). Nought 12:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable or nonexistent. jni 14:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unless they accept everything that comes their way, I would think a Sundance appearance would make it somewhat notable. Gamaliel 20:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel, just because the author of the article (probably one of the co-authors of the movie no doubt, and even that is assuming the movie exists) says that the movie will be on Sundance 2005 doesn't actually mean that the movie will be on Sundance 2005. A google search on Roxie and Martha yields 2 results and neither is about the movie, one would think that a movie notable enough to appear on Sundance 2005 would be mentioned somewhere on the web, especially one made by a 14 year old. --Nought 21:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Change vote to delete as it seems to only have been submitted, not accepted. Gamaliel 02:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am one of the creators of the said film, it is a real film, it has been sent to Sundance, I did write this article. I am not sure if the film will actually be shown at Sundance, that is why it says SUBMISSION!!! Paulian Pictures Corporation is a real studio with actors and actresses under our power. The motion picture hasn't been released or anything yet, that is why there is no results on Google. A letter has been sent to Fox Searchlight Pictures to sell them the delivery rights. --fibbovan
 * It doesn't say SUBMISSION it says Official Entry, and heck, I can take a camera, make a movie and then send it to a movie festival, and that doesn't mean the movie is any good or notable since anyone can do it. PPC is real? Google hasn't heard of it either, also you're 14 and you have your own studio? Wow, good for you. One question - why have all instances of Mitchell VanLandingham been replaced with Teddy Voshall?
 * To sum up - making a film to which only proof of existance is your word because nobody heard of it and sending it to a film festival (call me sceptic but again - which nobody can confirm) doesn't make it in any way notable, if the movie is any good it will get noticed and it will be mentioned somewhere where we can independently verify its existence and than someone will make an article about it. --Nought 02:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the movie is so insignificant that this vote for deletion is considered a major part of its history, it's not worthy of inclusion. This article is also unverifiable. P.S. Mr. VanLandingham: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 03:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)