Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer of Mesa


 * 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 no consensus. This was surprisingly difficult to close. Only the creator and WP:SPA Needyhaux wants to keep this article, but they do not tell us which sources now supposedly make this film notable. Pyxis Solitary goes off on a tangent about the great wrongs of Wikipedia, but expresses no opinion on the merits, and neither does Flori4nK. On this basis, I initially thought that I couldn't fault the conclusion that everybody else comes to: that the sourcing is insufficient for an article. But after looking at it more closely, the article does now have a number of sources that may well be "tiny local news sites", but may also not be, and they merit more discussion than they have been given here. As such, I don't think that this AfD provides us with a sufficiently informed "delete" consensus - but a second discussion might well do that.  Sandstein  17:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Summer of Mesa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about YouTube-only film, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- films need to show some evidence of their significance, such as noteworthy film awards and/or non-trivial attention from film critics. But this cites no media coverage at all, and even a Google search turns up no viable sources either: it only turns up databases and primary sources, not notability-supporting media. According to this article the film is still a few weeks away from its release, so no prejudice against recreation at a later date if its sourceability improves -- but if sources don't already exist yet, then a Wikipedia article isn't allowed to exist yet either. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable YouTube film. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See below (previously del per nom). - Flori4nK T A L K  20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Put delete on hold for 72 hours. The article was created on 19:05, 9 May 2020‎ ‎ -- one hour before this request for deletion was initiated. It's an upcoming film. There have been and are articles about upcoming films that have not received the kick in the ass that this one has. The editor who created the article is a noob and obviously isn't 100% familiar with all the requirements for creating Wikipedia articles. He/she should be given 72 hours to add reliable sources. If they have not been added after the 72 hours have passed, then, yes, delete it. (It's distasteful how steam hammers are so zealously brought down on articles when there's nothing offensive about them to warrant such a response. No wonder so many people won't contribute to Wikipedia, and so many other say F-it and leave.)  Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 09:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realize that AFD discussions have to be kept open for at least a full week, right? That means that nobody needs any special 72-hour suspensions of process, because the normal process already gives them more than 72 hours to attempt to fix the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Pyxis Solitary, for your extremely kind and understanding point of view. You expressing that sentiment touches me and puts this at-first disheartening experience into a positive one. I also now completely understand and respect the citation rules of Wikipedia that I was not fully aware of. I want to fully abide by them. I had emailed a producer of the film yesterday afternoon after seeing this and they told me the following publications are coming out with articles within the next few weeks: Windy City Media Group (Chicago LGBT publication), Cape Cod Times, Boston Spirit Magazine, Bay Area Reporter and CapeNews to name a few. Will those sources be reliable? Furthermore, is it possible for the article to be hidden until I am able to cite these sources properly, instead of fully deleting and re-entering this information? I respect your decision and appreciate the time given to help better this article. I am a very strong proponent and fan of all inclusive and queer representation, especially those that feature people of color in leading roles. That is limited in media even today, so please forgive me for jumping the gun and wanting to further legitimize a project that I know will comfort so many LGBT youth before the right sources are made available. I now fully understand. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needyhaux (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just in case, you should copy the article and save it in your Sandbox. Bay Area Reporter, Cape Cod Times, and Windy City Times are reliable sources and have Wikipedia articles. Boston Spirit and CapeNews.net (owned by The Enterpise) don't have WP articles, but they are acceptable sources. However, even though it is a film article, other than for WGA credits and MPAA ratings you cannot use IMDb as a reliable source because it's loaded with user-generated content and considered questionable. Take a look at this recently-created film article stub so that you get an idea of how to start one without encountering hassles. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 09:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have gone ahead and done so. I tremendously appreciate you verifying those sources, and clarifying about IMDb. I look forward to adding the aforementioned sources as they become available very soon and further conforming the article to Wikipedia's standards.Needyhaux (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have gone ahead and included a source from Windy City Times about the film. I look forward to adding the rest of the aforementioned sources as they come in! Thank you to everyone for the clarifications. Needyhaux (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As sources are being made available with one already cited in the article. I am trying my hardest to understand recent notes made, and fully appreciate the edits to better conform this article to standards. Needyhaux (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) — Needyhaux (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- puddleglum  2.0  20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Has sourcing improvex?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It had zero sources when created and now it has three reliable/acceptable sources.(talk) 13:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it now has 5 acceptable sources.Needyhaux (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral: It seems to be better sourced now, but I couldn't check the capecodtimes.com and wellfleet.wickedlocal.com articles due to geoblocking. I'll read everything I can access and might change my !vote to Keep/Weak Keep. - Flori4nK T A L K 18:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm sorry, I know you want to drive traffic to your film but I'm afraid Wikipedia can't possibly start hosting articles on individual Youtube videos with budgets of $400.  We would be swamped with them.  Inundated.  The reviews in tiny local news sites don't really change that.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep . I don't think the question is how much they made the film for or where it was released, I think the question is of its notability and how it has more sources outside of tiny local ones in its reference list -- two of which are fully reliable under Wikipedia standards -- as well as the traffic it has already gotten. However, I must admit that I fully hear you and agree that unreliably sourced YouTube videos would be an issue if they flooded Wikipedia, just like this one would have been had it never have been sourced. This AFD has been open for almost a month which is a very long time to make a decision. Hopefully this article can close and the page stay as the stub that it is for this existing film.Needyhaux (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stricken out duplicate vote. BOVINEBOY 2008 10:58, 4 June 2020 (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.