Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The thought exchange (film)


 * 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   redirect to David Friedman (composer). Drmies (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The thought exchange (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unfortunately, I was not able to find enough reliable, independent coverage for this film. It does have some notable people, but I was unable to find anything more, aside from some press releases by Library Tales Publishing. Note that the article for the original book, as well as for LTP were deleted after a discussion discussion, and that the creator's username suggests a conflict of interest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note, this article has more information than most articles about films. Take for example, this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Object), that only has one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushermorgan (talk • contribs) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's so short that it really only needs one or two references. A Google search however proves that film's notability, which unfortunately, cannot be said for The Thought Exchange. Actually, the fact that it contains more information means that it needs more sources, especially reliable third-party coverage such as reviews on reliable sites. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The film has yet to be released, it is released on May 1st. Instead of deleting the page, can you give me suggestions on how to improve it? If the fact that there is more info on the page means that it needs more sources, should I remove some information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushermorgan (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you Usher Morgan the director of this film? You can start by reading WP:V and WP:FILM. The most important thing you should find are reliable third-party coverage of the film. As in, nothing by Library Tales Publishing. Since the film hasn't been released, it could be too soon to have an article. Once the film is released, and reliable sources have been found, then the article can be recreated, but I don't recommend that you do it due to possible conflict of interest issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as I did not found any reliable source, this one is not very notable. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 15:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I work for Morgan, yes. Should this be edited under a different user name then?
 * I will add more sources to this article today, note - the other film I mentioned had much more information that this film, when you look at the two pages, you will see that the Thought Exchange page had less info and more sources. and there is much more information about the Thought Exchange on Google when you type it in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushermorgan (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend you not editing the article at all since, being a person working for the director can mean a possible conflict of interest (read that page for more information). If, through this deletion discussion, consensus determines that the film is notable enough for inclusion, then other, non-affiliated users will be willing to expand and work on the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes... please visit WP:PRIMER and WP:NAY to gain a better understanding of sourcing requirements and how editors need concern themselves with concerns towards conflict of interest. If you DO have reliable sources speaking about the topic of this film, bring the sources to us here at this discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And to be clear... "reliable sources" does not mean IMDB, the production or "offical" websites, blogs where anyone can "post" anything, or press releases. We do have the MSNBC article leading us to Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb discussing the book on April 27 2012, but to show a film's notability it must have been the recipient of commentary and analysis in reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete article and Redirect title to David Friedman article (which itself needs work), as a location where this might be reasonably be mentioned even though (as yet) lacking notability for a separate article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another page for the Thought Exchange book ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thought_Exchange_(Book) ) so another option would be to just mix them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieMoore26 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand WP:Notability (films) and WP:Notability (books). More than just announcements of its existance, there is a requirement for actual coverage and anaysis in reliable sources. In looking at the sources in the article you've just written, you do not have enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability for either the book or film. This may change later, and they'd be welcomed back then, but Wikipedia does not allow itself to be used as a promotional service.  The good news is that we DO have verifiability enough for them to be at least mentioned in the Friedman article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: As the notability of David Friedman for other things is pretty much a lock, I have performed some (required) cleanup and citation fixes, and then created a sourced author section there to which both this film and the book upon which it is based can be redirected. Neither book nor film as yet meets the applicable notability criteria meriting separate articles, but they can at least be mentioned contextually at the author's article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the book is that notable either. Sure David Friedman's ideas were the basis of the book and film, but I don't think they would be suitable search terms, since they would more likely be associated with Morgan and not Friedman, but a mention will certainly be welcome. I'm also thinking of nominating the book for deletion since I don't think it is notable either, but since this AfD is almost half-way through, I would probably have a separate AfD. Would that be alright? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Without knowing for certain, I suspect new author User:EddieMoore26 may actualy be User:Ushermorgan abandoning his original accout due to recognition of appeaance of WP:COI. I say this because both article use the same poor sources in the exact same way. But rather than an AFD, why not simply do an uncontroversial redirect of the book's article to David Friedman (composer)? If the redirect is contested, THEN take it to AFD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to David Friedman (composer). Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 05:44, 1 May 2012 (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.