Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TH3 (Short Film Series)


 * 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 -- JForget  00:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

TH3 (Short Film Series)

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

The purpose of this article seems to be to promote a non-notable film (if it does in fact exist). 'Notability' and 'proposed deletion' tags were removed. Author has stated that information is "first-hand", which would appear to be an admission of original research and a conflict of interest. Signalhead (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Either a hoax or extremely non-notable. Google can't find anything for "th3" & "RubberBand Productions" . PC78 (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, RubberBand Productions is a very small, independant company without a webpage. All movies that RBP has made thus far have been not-for-profit and for the sake of gaining populartity, and a wikipedia article seems like one of the best ways to get the name across. I assure you, this is not a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.47.39 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Well! It maybe a hoax, it may not be a hoax.....it should simply be deleted from Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The user who created the page is User:RubberBandProductions and is blocked indefinitely for username violation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. Author cannot remove speedy deletion tags. JuJube (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as self-admitted spam -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? you have no right, not to meantion no proof, to block RubberBand Productions from wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a symbol of democracy - by the people, for the people, and by taking away my right to edit articles, you take away my freedom of speech. There is no proof that you can possibly have that states that RubberBand Productions or TH3 do not exist. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that is constantly updating itself. If you let any other film be published, you should let mine. If this continues, I will contact the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.43.49 (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply put, Wikipedia doesn't list everything that exists everywhere; businesses have to be big enough to have an article. As for the user, they were blocked because user names can't be an advertisement. They have the option to request a name change and keep editing. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this is being pedantic, but being "big enough" is not the criteria. A company can be small and WP:notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how the TH3 article can possibly be bias. I mean, its reporting on a series of films, right? What's so wrong? It's not hurting anyone at all, and its reporting information regarding an independant film company, something that needs publicity anyway. This is not to say that its an advertisment though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.104.121 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Whpq, that's what I meant; my brain just didn't come up with the right word. It's true that it doesn't hurt anyone; however, to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't fill with advertisements and articles that people write about themselves, guidelines were set that content has to meet to be included. This is called notability and the policy is at WP:Notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it's designed to report on what is already popular, important, etc., not to create publicity. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, promotional without independent sources attributing notability. Wikipedia is not for "getting the name across", even for non-profits. We're an encyclopedia, not a press agent. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 27 March 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.