Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Label


 * 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 - I don't even know what to say here. this is unacceptable behavior on the part of the nominator. It'll be impossible to sort this out, I'm going to make a fresh nomination. See ../The Label (2nd nomination). —Random832 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Label

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unbelievably blatant future movie PR by WP:SPA. Should be Speedy Deleted IMO. See also Fia Starr Roan. Ψν Psinu 03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WARNING: IP 24.20.216.95 HAS ONCE DELETED THIS AfD DISCUSSION. Appears to be tampering by person related to subject matter. PLEASE PATROL AND/OR SPEEDY DELETE! Ψν Psinu 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

MORE TAMPERING IS OCCURRING (defacto page blanking, all but headers) as of the time to the right. Ψν Psinu 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: There is no TAMPERING:  The article was being edited to conform to the complaints. And Psinu kept changing it back.
 * (note, User:24.20.216.95 added the above comments and has contributed to the article several times. Pharmboy (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. The plug for a freebie gives it away. Spam! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's spam, but not enough for G11. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 04:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree on the current state of the article, but i wonder if a valid article could be made. Looks like it's way past development stage.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, i can't even access the "official site" don't let my comment stand in the way of deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails the notability requirements for films:
 * - has not been released and its production was neither notable nor received any coverage;
 * - is not the subject of any full-length reviews or articles;
 * - has not received any awards, is not included in any curricula and has not been selected for inclusion in a national archive;
 * - no sources to indicate a unique contribution to cinema or its genre;
 * - is not one of the most important roles performed by any notable people (in fact, does not feature any notable people at all); and
 * - has not been successfully distributed in any country or region where film distribution is otherwise unlikely.
 * This article should be recreated if the movie is a hit post-release. Until then this is just another low-budget gangsta-rap flick. Euryalus (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article spoils the plot, which is practically a crime since "[t]his is a powerful must see film for anyone who loves Hop-Hop".  Seriously, it's an ad for a non-notable movie. Superm401 - Talk 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am the writer of this article.  Someone edited my work and put in promotional language that was not in the original entry.  I have tried to change it back to its original format, but the moderators keep undoing the edits.  Psinu is reporting tampering, but that is not the case.  Using words in capital letters such as "Tampering" and "Warning" and then recommending a speedy delete is an inappropriate scare tactic.  It is my article.  I am editing the article to conform to the complaints.  This movie is listed on Internet Movie Database at imdb.com and All Movie at allmovie.com.  The intention of this entry is merely to be description of the film.  I have seen this film at a screening in Los Angeles.  I believe this entry to be a significant contribution to Wikipedia.  It is not intended as Spam in any way.    Brennusgroup - Talk  —Preceding comment was added at 09:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi Brennusgroup. Don't worry about claims of tampering - an anonymous user blanked this AfD debate but it was easily restored. On a more important issue, a film requires non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The notability guideline for films specifically excludes the Internet Movie Database and similar sites from the definition of non-trivial coverage, because they indiscriminately list almost every film. To assist in determining the notability of this article, could I ask that you have a look at the guideline I wikilinked above and see if The Label meets the criteria?
 * Comment - Thanks for your comment, but please note that IMDB does not indiscriminately list films. The process is very thorough and highly regarded at this point in time.  Furthermore, I have been trying to correct the article, but moderators keep reverting the article back to a version that doesn't comply with Wikipedia standards.  Unwarranted spooky words such as "TAMPERING" and "WARNING" are inappropriate.  The moderators need to stop reverting the article back to version that has been corrected.  Furthermore, IMDB is a third party and so is All Movie Guide, Muze, and Hollywood Video (http://www.hollywoodvideo.com/movies/movie.aspx?MID=142672&LF=STL)  Each of these sites have done their own write up.  Hollywood Video has 4,000 stores and carries the film.  These sites list the film and consider the film notable.  Brennusgroup - Talk small>—Preceding comment was added at 11:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. The notability guideline is pretty specific on what is considered trivial coverage ... "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." Being available at a local video chain like Hollywood Videos isn't really that notable either, and certainly doesn't meet the Wikipedia notability guideline.Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. When the movie receives enough coverage of reviews and critics from reliable secondary sources, then it can have a separate article in Wikipedia. At this moment, not to mention that it is a future product, the article has no warranty to be notable for a film article. I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, there doesn't appear to be the secondary sources available that indicate notability. Lankiveil (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep . Please also see Filmmaker Magazine at http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/filmsites/filmsites_L.php  Brennusgroup - Talk  —Preceding comment was added at 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't !vote twice. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * weak delete can't find any verification via wp:rs, imdb and wikipedia seem to be the only significant links. Pharmboy (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as advert and also per WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete per WP:CRYSTAL, subject clearly doesn't meet any notability criteria yet. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising, crystal-ballism and for a healthy dose of WP:COI too. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 2 January 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.