Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign Denizen


 * 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) 22:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sovereign Denizen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unable to find any evidence that the subject meets WP:NFILM. Hut 8.5 11:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator originally had issues with the content's copyrights, but the work actually is in the Public Domain (see article's Talk page). The article has been tagged under Wikiproject Film, so just leave well enough alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalbug (talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm not complaining about the copyright problem, the concern here is that the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That it's been tagged as part of Wikiproject Film does not make the subject notable. Hut 8.5 10:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on the movie being independent cinema, but I see no reason to remove it (at least now). There's a good chance that it would be re-written if it was deleted, since Rick Angell has a number of video views from legitimate media sources covering him on Youtube, including a New York Times page about his filmography . That doesn't qualify him as famous, but a 5 year old documentary coinciding with current events should warrant something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentOrangish (talk • contribs) 06:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)  — AgentOrangish
 * Yet again, that's not evidence of notability. A likely automatically generated page which doesn't even mention the article subject certainly doesn't meet our criteria. Even if the maker of the film is notable (which I see no evidence of, and we don't have an article on him either) that wouldn't make the film notable. If a page deleted by a deletion discussion is recreated without substantial improvements it can be deleted on sight. Hut 8.5 11:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point. The page does say, with indirect referencing, that the movie was reviewed by two notable sources (Missoula and Missoula Independent). They meet WP:NFILM. What's the problem?AgentOrangish (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For a start notability requires actual evidence. Merely indicating that there is a source somewhere is not sufficient, you do actually have to produce the source in question. Secondly merely being reviewed doesn't necessarily confer notability, as the review would itself have to meet various criteria. NFILM gives several classes of reviews that don't qualify. Hut 8.5 18:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 ll semi the AFD to stop further socking. Courcelles 01:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just blocked Journalbug and AgentOrangish for votestacking this AFD as sockpuppets confirmed by checkuser. I

In summary, I don't think this film meets the notability criteria at WP:NFILM yet. If it ever does, the article can be re-created (hopefully using a less promotional writing style). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This is blatantly promotional and should have been speedied.  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 02:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I appreciate people who place work in the public domain, but this fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. Upload it to commons and call it a day. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This film apparently was released only to local public access television, which generally does not convey much notability. It was then released to the Internet where it has received only 107 views so far on YouTube. The film is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database yet. The only sources that have been provided so far are the following:
 * a link to a public access television station's program database, which admittedly does confirm that the film was shown there;
 * a page on YouTube's copyright policy, which doesn't mention this film -- I think it is only being used to explain why different editions of the film have different music, but that says nothing about this film's notability;
 * a press release (not an independent source); and
 * links to where the film can be viewed on YouTube and the Internet Archive (which indicate that the film exists, but not that it is notable).
 * Delete and salt. I did a search and was unable to find anything that shows that this film is notable. I wouldn't normally recommend salting the article, but considering that one of the socks all but said that they (or someone else) would simply re-add the article after it was deleted makes me think that there's a high likelihood that someone would attempt to re-add it.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:54, 23 December 2012 (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.