Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Dogs


 * 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. Wikipedia is not for things that are "trying to gain recognition" - it only covers things that are already notable, i.e. have already gained recognition from independent sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

World of Dogs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this via a speedy, which was declined by another admin before I had the chance to, as it wasn't unambiguously promotional. There is still a problem with notability, as I can't find anything to show that this movie meets notability guidelines for films. I wish the director well, but this just doesn't seem to pass GNG for future or released movies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * DELETE per nom, WP:NOTFILM, WP:NFF. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability which would outweigh WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NFF. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Concurring with above, I also note that this film/documentary is nothing different than any other "$20 Camera" Film Director could make. No objections to Userfication/Articles for Creation as outcomes from this discussion to give the author of the article time to improve and make a case for why the article should be in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think AFC should be used as a holding tank for things that have no reason to remain.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice how I didn't say holding tank. I see potential in this, and considering the page was created as the author's first (and only so far) edit to Wikipedia I think putting it in a place to give them guidance (like AFC) is what we should all strive for, unless you're just out to bite the newbies outright... Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AfC would probably be better since not only would they have more ability to get guidance from others, but if they decide to abandon the piece and never edit again, it'd end up getting deleted after 7 months to a year of no edits. (Supposed to be 7 months, but usually ends up being longer of a wait.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually 6 months that is authorized by the CSD, but the bot can nominate for deletion at 7 months. The bot is a bit backed up right now and is still working through it's first pass.  I think at this point we're at 9 months stale, so we're making progress, it'll just take a little bit longer before the bot starts nominating the 7 month stale articles. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You guys don't even give anything a chance. This could be an important cinematic art piece that is trying to gain recognition. Why can't any of you lay off and cut some slack for the director? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockyourdoors (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This could be an important cinematic art piece that is trying to gain recognition. WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:NOTPROMO. Hasteur (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (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.