Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The True Victory


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The True Victory

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

Contested speedy of unreleased film not even in production yet. Google search on <"The True Victory" "Kevin B. Rogers"> (to separate out other similar film titles) brings back zero results. No valid claims of notability, references are all primary sources, and major COI as the film director is the article creator. Delete. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. I said in my edit summery, "...wait for work completed, then consider AfD." You didn't even give me five minutes! Please be patient while I attempt to source this.  American Eagle ' ( talk ) 16:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. I'm going to do my best to find sources.  Please just wait.  Give us some time.  Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are right, not one scene has been filmed. But what cannot be denied (and I realize this is going to be scrutinized) is that other film articles are created during the pre-production stage and they do not get this sort of heavy scrutinization. If it has anything to do with it's church affiliations (and I'm not accusing you of anything) it constitutes religious discrimination. Again, I'm not accusing anyone here. But I strongly feel that this article should be kept. And if not, is there any article anywhere that it can be merged with? Perhaps if I created an article for the church? Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cavanaugh FWBC is equally non-notable, like most small congregations around the planet. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know it is non-notable? It's not like we have 3 members.  There are many more, believe me. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did a search on it before saying that. You're not nearly as small as, say, my home congregation (Bethel SBC in Deanburg, TN), but by planetary standards Cavanaugh is still not large enough to meet our notability standards. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Fort Smith, AR? That page is already there.  I could clear up the entire conflict right now by mentioning in a small line that there is a planned movie to be filmed there. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we're left with the problem of verifiability, and sourcing. If you can't come up with independent references about the film being made, what references would support it being added to the Fost Smith article? It's the same problem. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is done, I'll wait until better sources can be found. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

*Keep I know my vote may not count, as I created the article, but here's my argument: First off, I wasn't aware of the WP:NFF rules. Disregarding that, I agree, the article has exactly 0 references and only 1 external reference. And it does seem biased, that because it is my film, I want the article to stay. But lots of films started out the same way (I realize that this is basically saying "Other Stuff Exists," but this isn't a matter of keeping the article, it's a matter of whether or not the film is notable). Those films are notable (not here on Wikipedia, but everywhere). Maybe this wasn't the time to create an article. Maybe (certainly) I wasn't the person to create the article. But I don't see one form of advertising in the article. If I have a little more time to gather references, I'll be able to do so. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a "mere" $5000? Take a look at this before you start creating articles. Just because others don't pay attention does not excuse you ignoring the rules. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll delete the word. The "WP:NFF" page I was not aware of.  Though I don't agree with the rule, I'll comply from here on. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to put it like this, Michael Bay (and anyone associated with him) are highly unlikely to have ever edited the Transformers or Transformers 2 articles, they made a film, it made money, it got press, the article was created. Kudos to you for getting involved with this business called show, but make your film and get it released, if it is notable at that point then someone else will create the article (someone not connected to you or the film) and it will have a better chance of surviving. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete -- advertisement for embarassingly non-notable non-existent film that may or may not ever get made; violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and above all WP:NFF. If the movie ever gets made and ever becomes notable, then somebody without a COI could create an article on it. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's what I say to that. I truly am offended by the fact that you say that it is embarrassing.  And not one person has even cared to listen to this: I AM GETTING RESOURCES.  Don't delete an article simply because the creator is involved with the film.  WP:NFF is a horrible rule.  I'll comply with it from now on, as I was previous unaware of it.  And go ahead, delete the article.  It will just be re-created once the film is released, and you'll have wasted everyone's time.  Thanks for wasting mine. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that you come in here, violate the rules, have the rules explained to you, yet claim that we are wasting your time? And if the article gets recreated without reliable sources as to its notability, it will get deleted again, and you will have wasted everybody else;s time again.Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I realize the rules were violated. I have acknowledged that time and time again.  I didn't realize, however, that they were broken.  If someone would have told me at the very beginning, I would have been fine with it.  But when they cite fixable things first, and then say "Oh, wait, you're in violation of the rules!" it just really makes me mad.  Go ahead, delete the article.  In the meantime, I'm going to get a list together of every article that I feel should be deleted. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it, juts don't be too pointy. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The article should at least be given a little more time, as the creator says he is currently searching for sources BAR1269 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC) — BAR1269 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - How long should it take to find sources? You can't squeeze blood from a stone. This AfD shouldn't close for a few days at least, and if he can't come up with something by then (and I doubt very much he will) then it should certainly close with a deletion result. Fair enough? --  At am a chat 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NFF which is the existing guideline and a sound one at that. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF and Wikipedia is not for things made up in church one day. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF - you may think it's a "horrible rule", but we think it helps Wikipedia be an encyclopedia not an advertisement-hoarding. Also, note that even when the film has been made and released, it will still not get an article unless it is notable.JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is exactly why we have WP:NFF. There is no hint that this movie will ever have notability (if it every gets made), considering its tiny budget and unknown cast, and it certainly does not have notability at this time. --  At am a chat 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF - even once made unless something extraordinary happens this film will not be notable. Smartse (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's my problem with this entire conflict: most of it (excluding the apparent rules violation) is based on opinions. I have a real problem with that.  It's your opinion that there is no notability, and I see why you think that.  However, none of you (most likely) know anything about it.  There are no sources, I'm admitting that.  When there are, though, you will see how notable something like this truly could be. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That is a very fair statement. I don't think anyone has made it clearly and objectively enough. So hopefully this will make it easier... One of the inclusion standards, which is an official guideline, is WP:N which outlines what article subjects are "notable". The basic gist of the guideline is that an article subject can be considered notable if you can show significant coverage in reliable sources. What is a reliable source is covered under the WP:RS policy, but can be a bit subjective admittedly. Essentially, however, you would need to show that some notable publication (multiple publications preferably) gave in-depth coverage of your upcoming film. For example, a lengthy article in the New York Times might do it (just an example). That is the objective standard that your film is being held to. In addition, because films are very often begun but not released due to the enormous difficulties involved (which I'm sure you've experienced) there is a slightly greater hurdle presented at WP:NFF. That is what these deletion recommendations are based on, and should not reflect a prejudice against yourself, your church, or your film. If you are surprised by the somewhat strong language behind the deletion recommendations, it is because there are often films begun by established filmmakers starring famous actors with a sizable budget that still are too obscure to pass notability requirements, and in comparison your movie seems to fall very much short. But who knows, maybe your movie will be the next "Clerks"? At that time the article can be recreated. --  At am a chat 21:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. You're right, there are thousands of setbacks along the road to a good movie.  We started pre-production back in March, and are just now able to begin the production stage (even though pre-production usually takes years, we're still behind schedule).  I'll work on the article further in my sandbox, and I'll clear up the sources during that time.  When I feel it's notable enough, I'll have the article reviewed by an outside source and have them post it if necessary.  Fortunately, all of this has in a funny way inspired me to get it done, just so I can get a Wikipedia article about one of my projects.  Thanks everyone, and remember to go see "The True Victory" in January! Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the sandbox page can be found at User:Kevinbrogers/The True Victory if anyone wishes to check in at a later date. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The creator of the page would like to change his vote to Delete, as long as the page is archived and can be reposted later, once the film has become notable enough. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And sorry for all the harsh words over the course of this debate. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NFF. Also bothered by the WP:COI issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the WP:NFF. Though WP:COI isn't grounds for deletion, I agree with that one too.  I am the creator of the article in question, and I have also voted delete on this page.  Right now I'm just waiting for it to go away.  I've put it on my sandbox so that when I can overcome the WP:NFF and have some outside people look at the WP:COI, the article can be re-added. Kevinbrogers (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NF in general, (not just WP:NFF) and WP:SOAP. [Snark removed]--ospalh (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - That last snark was gratuitous, "bitey" and uncalled-for!. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you're right. I'll try to keep it to myself in the future.--ospalh (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice with thanks to author. Allow back once principle filming has begun and notability can be adequately established. Let's encourage editors, and not give up on good faith efforts to improve the project. 05:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * Delete per Orangemike Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:01, 6 July 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.