Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mercury Cycle


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mercury Cycle

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

Article with same name was previously speedily deleted. This article was prodded but prod was removed by sole author without significant improvement. Author admits COI. This is a non-notable film which is not released. It is the effort of students at Quinniapac University. Porturology (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The article is not blatant advertising, so there's not a clear speedy category for it. However, it's a non-notable film, and the only sources provided are the Quinniapac student newspaper. Wikipedia is not for things made (up) in school. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from. I have fixed the COI problem. This film has a very unique story attached to it and our efforts and final product are not only notable, they are extraordinary. One of the only ways for us to gain notoriety is for us to be on credible websites such as Wikipedia. What else would you suggest to improve this article? Thank you very much for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlhart (talk • contribs)


 * Delete - By the article creator's own words just above, they want this here to "gain notoriety", thus violating WP:SPAM, on top of the lack of notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia articles are about subjects that have already become influential in one way or another, not subjects that have yet to become notable. Loves  Macs  (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable student film. Only sources are the website of the film and the school newspapers's site. Seems to be little more than advertising for it.  TJ   Spyke  


 * I apologize, I meant notability, not notoriety. This is not a class project; it is an endeavor that students decided to take on top of their classes. What else would need to be added to this article for more notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlhart (talk • contribs) 03:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources from something besides the school paper. News coverage. Magazine coverage. Significant coverage in a reputable book. Read WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a Ebook OK? Unbordel (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the Ebook. An Ebook published by a recognised and reputable publisher might be okay, but not many qualify.  Can you link this Ebook?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, creator gives away his intent with "One of the only ways for us to gain {notability} is for us to be on credible websites such as Wikipedia.", you'll find that once you are notable thenyou get an article on Wikipedia, not the other way around. We are not a place to promote your film. And it would be nearly impossible for you to "fix the COI" unless you promised to never edit the article again. We cannot list every student film, no mater how "unique" they claim to be. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:35, 3 June 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.