Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taliban (screenplay)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Taliban (screenplay)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be nothing but a self-promotion of a less than notable screen play. Eeekster (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Let me know what you think now. I've tried to include only the facts without bias and have even pulled my name from it.THINKTANKSWORK (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "less than notable"? I'd be happy to submit a less POV description,  but "less than notable" is obviously a maligned personal attack.  Have you read it?   The treatment alone was read and approved for screenplay expansion by H. Keever of Initial Entertainment Group in 2004.RENGACORP (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Notable" is a standard term on Wikipedia, no offense is implied. A subject is "notable" if it has been discussed in some depth by independant reliable sources, or otherwise is considered significant enough for a wikipedia article. Many actually produced films, let alone unpublished screenplays, approved or otherwise, are not considerd "notable" in this sense. DES (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, unproduced work. I suppose the reason for the article is to announce that the screenwriters predicted that terrorists would fly planes into buildings--something that was also predicted by many people prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In the absence of reliable sources (or indeed, any sources) discussing this unproduced screenplay, I cannot see why it should be on Wikipedia. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability. Angryapathy (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete uncited vanity. --EEMIV (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable unproduced treatment/screenplay. No evidence has been provided that this screenplay is going to be filmed any time soon (note that it is claimed above that the treatment was approved for expansion into a full screenplay five years ago), nor that major media have taken notice of this work while it is still at the treatment/script stage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, reluctantly. There seems no evidence -- indeed not even any unspported claim -- that anyone took any notice of the predictions in this screenplay at the time, nor that the autors attempted to have any authority take notice. Aside from the prediction, an unproduced screenplay or treatment is not notable unless it has recieved significat public attention, and there is no statement that this one has. DES (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (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.