Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. The film has now been released, which lessens the force of the delete arguments based on WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex


WP:STALEDRAFT from November, no edits since then. User inquired on my talk page about restoring the article, but I was unable to find any reliable sources other than possibly this. The fact that the title only gets 27 hits on Google does not have me confident that this will ever be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If the film is yet to be released and the user plans to work on it more, I see no harm in retaining it. Everyking (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The film has a world premiere on Sunday 2nd March 2014. As per instructions from other wiki editors/contributors, I am looking to get the page up again close to its premiere. However, I would rather wait until there are more than '27 hits on Google' than begin a campaign to reinstate the page. Perhaps I should wait until it is released? I am keen to hear from other editors, not just Ten Pound Hammer who has made their position clear. Many thanks (Chaucer 06:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coalfacesally (talk • contribs)
 * User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex was taken down as the film was yet to be released. The film will premiere at the Byron Bay International Film Festival(attached link. It will then close the WOW Film Festival in Sydney. As the film now has several external links (attached) is it possible to put the page up again, as discussed when it was taken down? http://www.bbff.com.au/official-selection/bbff-2014-official-selection-a-womans-deeper-journey-into-sex/ http://www.echo.net.au/2014/02/women-able-buy-sex/ http://www.wift.org/wow/ (Chaucer 06:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coalfacesally (talk • contribs)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a crystalball. If we wait for someone to work on their pet project, and it becoming notable, we might end up waiting forever. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Times up. Between the 1 November 2013‎ first MfD and today 23 February, 2014, the draft should have been readies for mainspace per Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages. Hope of future coverage in reliable sources is not a basis to maintain a draft. Just store the material in a Microsoft word document on your personal computer and once there is enough source material, post it as an article. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your valued thoughts and assistance. I do feel that some opinions could be interpreted as being skewed towards studio films, which have the budgets to pay several 'arms-length' editors to contribute and put up wiki pages on the behalf of studios. The Independents could be seen as being prejudiced against. Many of the films with wiki entries are not 'notable' by any means. On a question of notoriety - the film stars and includes exclusive interviews with ex-Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss. It would appear some mistakes have been made, based on naivety, in relation to timing. I cannot see why many studio films are more deserving of a wiki page that this film. No-one is asking wiki to be a 'crystal ball' We would like the opportunity to develop the article of this page further with a view to re-instating it once it is released. Please advise if this is possible to do so. (Chaucer 22:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coalfacesally (talk • contribs)
 * Keep I have no problems with using STALEDRAFT as a deletion rationale, but it's very easily rebutted—i.e., by someone working on the page. Colfacesally has worked on this since the nomination, so it's not stale anymore. It may be easier to find sources now that the film has been released. If we can't come up with anything else in six months or so, we can say it didn't make a splash and will never make it as an article. For now, give it time. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 17 March 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.