Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaguepocalypse


 * 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. None of the Keep votes make a serious attempt at demonstrating that the subject passes WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Teaguepocalypse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film. A total of six Google hits, including this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So a private corporation decides what's notable and what's not?189.203.252.101 (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems exceedingly unlikely that a film would be the subject of much buzz in today's media without Google having found any of it, don't you agree? —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This film's website has had a couple hundred hits, contrary to the "6 hits" claimed in this accusation. This accusation is unfair, because this wikipedia page has only been published for 15 minutes, so what did you expect? Of course it will only have 6 views within the first 15 minutes of its publication. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wrote six Google hits. I didn't say anything about page views of your website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This film is NOTABLE it has an official website and official MERCHANDISE. The article is currently incomplete and will be added on to within the coming week until it is complete. Please do not delete this page. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A website and merchandise aren't the ingredients of notability. See the general notability guidelines and the guidelines for films. Google failing to find any independent mentions of the film, let alone substantive coverage in reliable sources, indicates that this film has not achieved note. That being the case, the completeness of the article isn't a consideration. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you think this film doesn't exist or what, but I can assure you it does. Why don't you look at the trailers on the website. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't express any doubt about the film's existence. The issue is its lack of notability as defined under Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But it has received notability. According to you, 6, and to me, hundreds. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the guidelines to which I have tried to draw your attention. Mentions of the film on the film's own websites, for example, doesn't contribute to notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are you so obsessed with taking this article down? Pcasey14 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that this film falls short of Wikipedia's standards for being the subject of an article. No obsession is involved. Wikipedia does have standards. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also if you haven't noticed, the movie is now recognized by Wikipedia. It must certainly be official now. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See hmmm... Wikipedia contradicts itself. It is a very notable source, and yet people can make these articles and then get accused of publishing non-notable stuff, when their "stuff" is on Wikipedia... a very notable source. So based on this site's rules you can't take down my article because you'd be breaking your own rules. Pcasey14 (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You clearly haven't read the guidelines through, particularly the part about substantive coverage in independent, reliable sources. And, really, you're going to argue that anything on Wikipedia meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion on Wikipedia by virtue of being on Wikipedia? Goodnight. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Aha! You can't beat that argument, bro. My article is safe. Pcasey14 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * KeepTo the administrators reading this, please don't delete this page on account that there is a fatal flaw in your deletion rules on notability. This article's topic is recognized by the very notable reference known as Wikipedia, therefore it has a very good notability and must therefore be kept because it now conforms with your policies on notability. Pcasey14 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is expressly not a reliable source. "Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." As I said, you haven't read through the guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * KeepBut this article is on a form of probation, and there is no statement in those rules saying an article on probation from wikipedia can't be used. It doesn't say "any form of" wikipedia articles, it only says "wikipedia articles", which, being so unclear, refers generally to only a normal wikipedia article. 71.213.158.157 (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Simple as that. Have a read of some of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria before trying again. And the above is just a spectacular waste of time. None of that is going to "save" your article because none of it is based on policy. Stalwart 111  06:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stalwart111's correct analysis and despite the arrant nonsense offered by the forceful voice to keep.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously not notable.  By the way, Largo, you're being trolled. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be wonderful if we had a speedy deletion category for this, but we don't, so I'll just have to say Delete per WP:NF. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Speedy delete under WP:A11. Note that the website mentions buying T-Shirts from a "Philip Casey".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of notability, as stated by others. Some background reading: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia Orser67 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Um guys I don't know what the big fuss is about. It's a project a bunch of friends and I are doing at school. We're not trolling you, we're just trying to make this more official. We're not trying to "advertise" or whatever, who on earth would ever search "Teaguepocalypse"? Advertising here would be pointless. This film is notable, by our school's standards. We would appreciate it if you guys would stop harassing us about this. If you're so uptight about people making articles on Wikipedia, then don't let just anyone come on here and make one. You claim you have policies when it is clear that anyone can come on here and so easily break them. I think you should just be glad we aren't just another group of teenagers who write inappropriate stuff on articles or make inappropriate new articles. This article is harmless and isn't hurting you guys at all. Your jobs are to stop those who wish to hurt the articles on this website, not spend your time harassing people who make articles that do nothing wrong, break no copyright rules, and include no foul language. Notability can't be truly measured because something can be notable on too many varying levels. Please just leave us alone.
 * Sincerely, the creators of this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcasey14 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 March 2014
 * Well, this says it all. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We will try to get more notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.158.157 (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a public bulletin board where you can write about a project you and a bunch of friends are doing at school. It's an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for making things "more official". A list of standards the article is in conformance with doesn't alter its nonconformance with the notability standards. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

__
 * Delete. Userfy to creators if requested with a strong suggestion that they read WP:Wikipedia is not about YOU and WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. While appreciating a promise to "get more notable sources", experienced Wikipedia editors pretty much know how find suitable sources if they existed. Heck, if I could have found enough suitable to meet WP:NF, I would be advocating for a keep... but they do not (currently) exist... and for student films, they often do not become available. And guys... go read A Primer for newcomers.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Schmidt. You are the most helpful editor I have met here. Everyone else has been fairly rude on this subject and we appreciate your support in our endeavors. I can understand your doubts about the notability and we are very close to fixing it. 71.213.158.157 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Um, let me rephrase that for you. Wikipedia IS a public bulletin board that anybody can contribute to. That's the whole point of the website. If you can't understand that point, maybe you aren't fit to be deciding which articles stay or go. Yes, I understand it has standards and rules and that you guys try to enforce them. Are you guys even payed to do this or do you just log on and look at random pages and comment?
 * Note (a) the difference between "encyclopedia" (which this is) and "public bulletin board" (which this is not) and (b) the difference between who can contribute (anybody) and what can be contributed (articles appropriate for this encyclopedia, not just any old thing you feel like). Ironically, you claim to understand this in your fifth sentence in your immediately adjacent paragraph above, which contradicts the understanding you claim to have of the situation in your second and third sentences. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It has come to our attention that articles should not be deleted if they can be edited to fix any rules they break. If this is true and you guys are all capable of editing this page, why have you not tried to do so? Can you attempt to do so? In the rules it says that IF a page can be edited to fix any broken rules, that should happen before it is deleted. Therefore, you can't delete this page until it has been edited to fit the rules, because it is possible for it to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.158.157 (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No amount of editing or "fixing" will resolve a lack of notability which is the standard by which things are included on Wikipedia or not. A lack of proficient writing can be fixed; a lack of notability can't. Stalwart 111  06:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if the replacement parts are simply not available, it is impossible to fix something broken. And in recognizing your comment about what can be fixed, should be fixed... please trust that I for one have lots of of experience in fixing things seen as broken. If I (or others) thought this student project was salvable, we'd be fixing it. Let it be released. Let it get coverage in reliable sources (not blogs or student papers) and that could change. Luck,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think a WP:SNOW close or WP:SPEEDY deletion might be in order.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep We have submitted the information for this film to IMDB.com and it is currently under review. If it passes and is put up on IMDB.com, will that be notable enough? It should be more than notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.158.157 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:User-generated content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP(final) Now listen here. You asked for notability? We're giving it to you. IMDB is an authority in film titles, frankly a much higher authority than Wikipedia. We are getting our notability and that puts an end to this discussion. If our submission to IMDB is approved, and we meet all the requirements, we will not be breaking any more of your rules. 71.213.158.157 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NO (final), per WP:NFILMS, "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database."  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you guys are so uptight about this, then please, instead of harassing us every time we do something that doesn't help us, tell us what sources ARE considered notable so we can research them. You people really aren't friendly and this reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Instead of letting you guys run around controlling this site Wiki should hire people to do this. Or at least hire someone to control you guys. The only person here who has offered any help is Schmidt. Pcasey14 (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We aren't "uptight" at all. We routinely delete hundreds of articles every day about non-notable topics. That's why this free encyclopedia has credibility and is the #5 website in the world. Insulting experienced editors won't help your cause. Instead, you should try actually reading and understanding the many links to helpful policies and guidelines that have been offered to you. Michael Q.Schmidt, probably our most respected active editor on film topics, asked you to read WP:NFILMS and WP:PRIMER. If you had read and understood them, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Your film will be notable if and when it receives in-depth critical commentary in several independent, reliable sources.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it


 * ehhhh you seem pretty uptight... If this page is taken down we will put it back up after its release and when it has become more notable. The reason I say "uptight" is because unlike Schmidt you guys have too much an "attitude" when talking to us. It just feels like you look down on us as if you hold some sort of power over us. We don't mean it to be rude, its just that maybe in the future you guys could lighten up.
 * I am as cool as a cucumber,, and very much enjoying the work I do here to improve this encyclopedia. I tell you what, if your film gets the sort of coverage that makes it notable by Wikipedia standards, I will personally write a fully-compliant article about it, and make sure that it does not get deleted. That's a promise that you can take to the bank.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm not sure if i should be offended or happy about that haha. Well, I guess I'll have to take you up on that later on. Pcasey14 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you answer our question? If everyone is saying delete, when can we expect our page to be deleted? Pcasey14 (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When an uninvolved administrator has the time to wade through this lengthy debate, the decision will be made. Most such debates last one week. Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Haha so much for this article. This debate is NOT on our side :P well maybe we'll get a merciful admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcasey14 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 21 March 2014 (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.