Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Reasons Why


 * 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 as a non-notable film. Based on the evidence below, I've blocked  as an obvious throw-away sock. -- jonny - m t  08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Six Reasons Why

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

Not a notable film. All sources are either primary (the film's own website and yourgeeknews.com) or unsuitable (Youtube video, imdb, Myspace). A google search doesn't yield any reliable secondary sources of note. As it is, the article is primarily used as a vehicle for advertisement.Atlan (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Advertising and no notability of the film (no release that I can find).  Utgard Loki (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: A websearch yields release info including the date of July 22, 2008 on several online retailers such as Amazon.com and the IMDB article on the film supports it as a release including a wikipedia notable cast member as well in Colm_Feore. Additionally, the YouTube link is not a primary news source, it is an Entertainment Tonight video news piece, not a user generated video.Clint507 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I do not contest the film's existence or its release. The fact that your websearch yields release info does nothing to address the issue of notability. Wikipedia's notability policy states that significant and in depth coverage by reliable third party sources is required to assume notability. You haven't provided any sources that qualify. Anyone with an account can submit a film for inclusion in the IMDB. Standards for inclusion are low and not in line with Wikipedia's notability policy (obviously). Selling a product through online retailers such as Amazon isn't an indication for notability as described in WP:N either. Colm Feore is a known actor, but his notability is not automatically inherited by the film.
 * Furthermore, there's the issue of a conflict of interest, as is ever the case with Matt Campagna (the film's director/writer/cinematographer/editor, User:Zymaseman here) on Wikipedia. You are obviously either in league with him or you are Matt yourself with a new account (all the edits on May 16th to the article, including the addition of the poster by the Zymaseman account, establish this fact). All of Campagna's created articles have so far been deleted as self-advertisement failing the notability requirement and I have no doubt this article was created for the same reason. For reference, see these Afd discussions: Your Geek News, Anastasia Tubanos.--Atlan (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. This is a completely non-notable film.  It's strongest argument for inclusion is in fact a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Qworty (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep : An upcoming release date does not seem to be 'unverifiable speculation' as per WP:CRYSTAL for several notable films on Wikipedia are yet to be released. In the case of something like The Incredible Hulk (film) a simple 'scheduled or expected films' is preamble enough. Is this just a double standard that favors Hollywood produced films that I don't know about? For the sake of completion, I appreciate that a poster was uploaded so promptly, but I just caught this film at the film market at Cannes few days back and thought it warranted an article. I can post it again in 60 days if that's all that is needed for it to be less offensive to the WP:CRYSTAL policy. Additionally, has anyone reviewed that Entertainment Tonight piece? Is there another method of asserting notability through television news coverage addressed than for it to be sourced as an online video? I've looked around the Wikipedia guidelines and haven't found specifics on video news references.Clint507 (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck your vote, you only get to vote once. Sorry, but I really don't buy the "coincidence" story when it comes to User:Zymaseman uploading the poster. You start a new account and right away begin to work on this article. Immediately User:Zymaseman uploads a poster after six months of inactivity, which you add to the article only 1 minute after it was uploaded. I would be hard pressed to believe coincidence even if you had an established account. Also, you can argue WP:CRYSTAL all you want. My concerns are, again, with WP:N. I've already explained that quite clearly.--Atlan (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sorry to blow the coincidence theory, Atlan, but there's a media team that combs the internet for Six Reasons Why related information at all times... very little slips past, and they noticed the Wiki Article right away. Once a movie gets picked up by an Oscar winning distributor, media teams are kind of standard stuff. Monitoring an article like this one for a property of theirs is a high priority for Thinkfilm, and that's why I knew to put the poster up so 'promptly'. Zymaseman (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that sounds entirely unconvincing (it's not a keep rationale either, but rather a rebuttal). The fact that you uploaded the poster doesn't bother me. It's the fact that User:Clint507 managed to add it to the article within 1 minute after you uploaded it, without any on-wiki interaction between you two. I've seen enough sock- and meatpuppet cases in my years here to spot them miles away. Anyway, that's not really the point. I really don't care that you 2 are in league with each other (unless you are the same person, in which case you now voted twice). That was just an observation. The notability issue is why this article is nominated for deletion.--Atlan (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: The poster mentioned above has since been deleted for lacking a proper fair use rationale.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for initially not having proper fair use rationale on the poster... I've not uploaded a photo to Wikipedia before, so I left that incomplete. It's been uploaded again as 'work entirely my own' so hopefully that covers it. You're right that Keep was not the right term for me to use for a rebuttal of your 'you two must be in league together' point if your point has no bearing on your case for a Delete vote based on notability. The meat of my Keep vote is that the notability of the Distribution company thows its weight behind the notability of the film and its release. Zymaseman (talk) 04:58, 28 May 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.