Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy deleted by JesseW. Rory 0 96 (block) 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Long Island Project
Only 183 google hits for "The Long Island Project" + film and only a few of those hits are about a film of that title. The only links I see are imdb and myspace, and the "official site" is on geocities. This seems like a use of WP as promotion. Delete. Gamaliel 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep pending the inclusion of more sources. It does show up on IMDb; I don't know how easy it is to get something listed there, but it would at least suggest notability.128.59.186.146 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, it's as easy as adding a new credit to an actor. And verifiably false information is still on IMDb today. Danny Lilithborne 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not quite that easy. EZZIE 20:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain It exists. Independent film with nobody you've ever heard of. All actors have no other credits, or have previously been extras or crew. Written by nobody you've heard of, directed by nobody you've heard of. Promoted through this article and a myspace page . Doesn't appear to have played anywhere except a few indy film festivals you've never heard of. Practically no relevant GHits outside of myspace and IMDB. Google search gets bolloxed by some environmental efforts labeled the same way. Fan1967 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:VAIN, and adcruft. RasputinAXP   c  [[Image:Gadsden_flag.svg|25px]] 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:VAIN and google test A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Deli nk 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy Delete. WP:VAIN --Strothra 00:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. WP:VAIN and adcruft. It appears EZZIE is the producer of this indie film. He's been promoting it on all the usual venues, IMDB, Geocity, MySpace and now Wikipedia. If it becomes notable, then......--Mytwocents 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion" -WP:VAIN. --ElectricEye 11:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Movie is a modern cult classic. Also from Wikipedia's definition of vanity: An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia. Cadebro 22:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide some evidence to substantiate that this is in fact a "modern cult classic". Gamaliel 22:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The film is independently produced on a small budget. As with the producer's previous movies the film has failed to go mainstream, yet is important and highly revered in limited regions.  The expectations for video sales and rentals are projected to surpass ticket sales.  The film has yet to have its worldwide release, yet it is already coveted by fans of the director and actors and those who have been lucky enough to have an early screening.  Modern cult classic is an oxymoron and is used to describe a movie's expectations rather than its current standing.  Those who want to delete this movie's listing because they haven't heard of it are being bias.  A majority of artists are not famous while they are creating their art; only mainstream blasé is. Cadebro 10:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This movie may become a cult classic loved by millions. It may land with a thud and be quickly forgotten by the few hundred who see it. No way to know. Wikipedia does not list people or things which may become popular. If in fact it does become notable, the article can be freely recreated at that time. Fan1967 14:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Userfy. This film is going to be released soon, right ? If the film becomes famous, then this page may be moved out of the subpage of the author's userpage and quickly get its own wikispace. We'll find out soon. The director of this film, a fellow Wikipedian, is advised not to contribute too much to this page, though, as per WP:VAIN. -- PFHLai 01:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Come to think of it, it may be okay to have this out as a wikiarticle when the promotion and advertising begin. Should be soon, eh ? -- PFHLai 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep --ElectricEye 10:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep EZZIE 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as repost of previously deleted content (see also Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project (2006). Stifle (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as per Stifle now that this has come to light. RasputinAXP   c  [[Image:Gadsden_flag.svg|25px]] 00:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Protecting against recreate would probably be a good idea. Fan1967 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a better article than the one I tried to create months ago. Katherine 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Keep Not that you count opinions of non-registered users or anything. 66.161.23.201 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per Stifle --Tbeatty 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Re-Consider With Other Users I've reviewed the last discussions when user: katherine put up the article, and the new discussion, and it seems to be the same series of events all over again, not just in part by the article writer, but also in part by the community. I would suggest that those not familiar with the case look into it, the article seems to have been cleaned up by other Wikipedians and reads more as an informercial than an advertisement.  Almost Famous 07:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SOCK PUPPET alert Now that EZZIE has been banned, suddenly we have the return of Katherine, the former voice of this film. We also have new user Almost Famous, with a very interesting list of contributions, who comes straight to this discussion almost immediately after registering. And by a remarkable coincidence, guess who has a myspace page where he uses the nickname "Almost Famous". - Fan1967 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Note - I have also tagged an AFD on Bay Currents. Article on local paper with little info on the paper, just three uploaded images of newspaper features about the director/producer of this movie. Fan1967 04:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Red Flagging of This Article
I would ask the administrators on this site to reconsider the deletion of this article. The existence of the subject can be varified at the links below. The subject matter of the film itself is of public interest and is the reason for its existence on wikipedia. Please reconsider. EZZIE 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I refactored all of that information to the Talk page, where it belongs. RasputinAXP  c   14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I refactored all of the massive discussion back to the talk page again. RasputinAXP  c   00:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreated. Also note that EZZIE is indefinitely blocked for personal attacks and vandalism. -- Rory 0 96 (block)  17:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh, and I live on Long Island and I've never heard of it, for the record. -- Rory 0 96 <sub style="color:maroon;">(block)  17:50, 19 April 2006 (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.