Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's There? (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   delete, although I'll userfy at request. Ironholds (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's There? (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. Article about an unreleased low budget short film directed by an unknown who's only previously directed two one minute shorts and starring a cast of unknown actors. No evidence of notability whatever. Fails WP:GNG and of course WP:NOTFILM in particular andy (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per andy Johnclean184 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment-The fact that you are not familiar with Pau Masó, doesn't make him less of an actor. He's in a film festival and he stars in a theatrical movie. He didn't direct two one minute shorts, do your research, the short is called one minute, it doesn't run for one minute! He's worked in numerous Music Videos aside from his modeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Dee Ford (talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. According to IMDB "One Minute" lasts four minutes and his other short is just... short. OK, I know that's how Ridley Scott began but in the beginning he wasn't notable either. Anyway, this AfD is about the film which is utterly not notable. andy (talk)


 * Delete – Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM.  ttonyb (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment-Oh, is 300.000 not enough? Can you keep it like this until the article on the AP comes out next week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Dee Ford (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Only 51 when using ' "Who's There?" and "Pau Masó" ' as the search criteria.  AfD's typically last 7 days.  BTW - a single AP article will probably not support notability.   ttonyb  (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, it won't only be AP, but also the Washington Post, NY Times among many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Dee Ford (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Independent short films from Spain have a dificult time showing notability when compared to their big studio-backed brethren made in the USA. So perhaps, as the coverage is "pending", the article is simply premature?  I am sure if deleted, the closer would gladly userfy the article to you so it can be further sourced, and if he agrees that it has then been significantly improved, the closer might be just as happy to help you get it returned to mainspace... and I would be happy to assist you in the article's formatting and style.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI a search on Spanish Google for the director's name gives very few hits and nothing that looks like a reliable source. The article doesn't give any hint of, for example, awards or general critical acclaim for the director and without that a film that hasn't even been released will simply not be able to attain notability whatever the language. andy (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI I am not calling for a keep, and Wikipedia recognizes that not all sources are online... so letting the author continue work on the article in his userspace will remove the article from mainspace, allow him to seek and add whatever hardcopy sources may be available, and help him develop his editing skills. The article might never merit mainspace... but so what?  In his userspace he can LEARN. I do not see that as a problem.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Comment-I'm lost. So If I add content that the moderatos want to remove, that's okay. But If I want to remove the content I created myself, that's a reason for blocking? I'm not joking with you or anything, I just want to understand. You know, I just thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia to find all sorts of content, relevant or irrelevant, as long as they were out there.  At the end of the day, the movie Who's There? is a movie and I just wanted to made it available for people to find, that's all. IMDb is a perfectly reliable source, but if my article violates the wikipedia guidelines, then my mistake, I was wrong by doing that. Just so you know, I also created an article for San Francisco 2177 which it's costs goes up to 3 million dollars and it's going to be removed as well. Not all movies cost 150 million dollars to make. There's plenty of examples of movies that were very cheap to make and made a lot of money. But again, my content isn't relevant I get it. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.92.213 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity: you removed all content from this page apart from your own comments. I warned you not to do it again, which is fair enough. San Francisco 2177 (film) will only be removed if it fails to meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, which seems very likely. You can prevent this by adding reliable sources which prove notability, as you can with the article that's the subject of this debate. andy (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment-I want to make something clear. When I started to create this article and I pressed save, I didn't know it would be published. My idea was to create it day by day until the date the press release came out and then when all the info was confirmed and different sources mentioned the movie, then made it available. But I guess I don't know how to get around this site just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.92.213 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer Yup, this place has a steep learning curve alright, and can be quite confusing to the uninitiated. And there are no "moderators"... only volunteer editors like yourself... simply with more experience. A new editor might better create a new article in a user space, where it can be polished and made suitable... and where he can also ask for input and assistance form pother editors without having to worry about someone hitting the delete button. You can create one as easily as clicking the redlink User:Hansen Dee Ford/workspace/new artticle and adding some content.  Check out WP:Userspace and WP:Sandbox. Many Wikipedians are quite willing to assist newcomers. And check out my in-process essay at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines... in a "userspace"... it could help.  A brand new mainspace article, specially by an inexperienced editor, comes under tight scrutiny from other volunteers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment- You should hold on to this article. The NY Times will do an article about the movie soon, on their website.
 * We do not hold something in mainspace simply because coverage may be "imminent". Ask the closer to userfy it for you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – The article can always be recreated if sufficient support is generated subsequent to deletion.  ttonyb  (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a recreation of deleted content is always possible, but as the author asserts the coverage is pending, why not let it be worked on out of mainspace? If it gets the coverage, then it might be back. If it does not, it won't.  In either instance, allowing an editor to work in a userspace is an option that untimately improves the editor's skills and thus the project itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Absolutely, I agree that a userspace move would be appropriate.  ttonyb (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2011 (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.