- 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 userfy to User:Ashliveslove/CorruptionDotGov. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Corruption Gov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about an unreleased film with no independent, published sources. It does not establish the notability of the subject. Likely too soon for an article. Prod was contested without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, I've no objection to this being userfied, per MichaelQSchmidt's suggestion. Sparthorse (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article was still being written when it was tagged for deletion. Please tell me under which deletion policy it's been nominated for deletion. ASHUIND 15:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, clearly since the release date changed from 2012 to 2010. As noted in the nominating statement, the article has no reliable sources so is unverifiable by readers. The film is also not, apparently, notable as does not have multiple, independent, published sources that are substantially about the film. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. I'm also confused: the article says the film is called "Corruption Gov" but according to the poster on the article, its called "Conflict of Interest" - any idea which it is? Either the article or the poster is a hoax, or the film has multiple names? This illustrates the perils of an unsourced article - how is the reader to know what is going on? Sparthorse (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wikipedia acknowledges itself as a work in progress that does not itself demand immediate perfection, one can certianly understand User:Ashliveslove's concern that prodding HIS ARTICLE for deletion only EIGHT minutes after its creation did not give him A reasonable opportunity to develop his article over time and through regular editing... and now places his contribution under the ticking clock of AFD. As for verifiability, it was easy enough to find that the project began filming in Texas in 2008 under the title Conflict of Interest and I've added that to the article through regular editing. Twarn't all that difficult, and I am involved in doing more... to improve the improvable...and THAT serves the project. At the most, I would have thought a suggestion to the author that he userfy the article while it was under work would have been far more appropriate. And to avoid premature evaluation of his offerings, the author should strongly consider beginning any future articles in a user draftspace rather then main space. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, clearly since the release date changed from 2012 to 2010. As noted in the nominating statement, the article has no reliable sources so is unverifiable by readers. The film is also not, apparently, notable as does not have multiple, independent, published sources that are substantially about the film. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. I'm also confused: the article says the film is called "Corruption Gov" but according to the poster on the article, its called "Conflict of Interest" - any idea which it is? Either the article or the poster is a hoax, or the film has multiple names? This illustrates the perils of an unsourced article - how is the reader to know what is going on? Sparthorse (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article was still being written when it was tagged for deletion. Please tell me under which deletion policy it's been nominated for deletion. ASHUIND 15:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources for the film, which seems not not be notable. To clarify, it seems that the name of the film is Corruption.Gov, rather than Corruption Gov. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)See below comment. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. If this film had received a noticeable release, it might well have been notable, but it hasn't. According to both this article and the Internet Movie Database, this film was supposedly released on 1 December 2010, and the IMDb doesn't indicate the release as having been limited [1], implying that it was a wide release. But no box office results were reported for the film that weekend [2], most likely because the film was not released at all at that time. Since this film has not been noticeably distributed and does not have significant media coverage that I can find, I recommend deletion. The article can be re-created if the film does achieve notability in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AKA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Original title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Directors:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Main cast:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Main cast:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Userfy back to the author at User:Ashliveslove/CorruptionDotGov, for contined work OUT OF MAINSPACE, as the topic IS verifiable and may well be determinable as passing WP:NF when completed. I will be glad to oversee its growth and improvement away from the ticking clock and I have suggested on the author's talk page that he use userspace for creation of his drafts for new articles, and not mainspace. Let's see what can be done with a little time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to userfication,. Sparthorse (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not doubt the verifiability of the film, I'm just not convinced that it is notable. I have no problem with userfication of articles which would be notable enough for Wikipedia - I'm not yet convinced as regards to this article. I'm not sure that the sources provided establish notability. The closest we get is probably this one; one its own, I don't think notability is established. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not entirely in disagreement, as I am NOT arguing the topic notable enough at this time for mainspace. We agree it is not, and if it had been, I would not even have suggested returning it to its author and would instead be arguing for keep. We allow premature articles to be worked on in a userspace, as that is what user sandboxes are for. We do not demand that in-work-drafts be mainspace ready, as that is determined by an entirely different set of criteria. Our taking it out of mainspace and allowing it to be worked on by its author until it is ready is a suitable and far less bitey alternative to outright deletion. Simply put, if he is unable to improve it, it will not be back. And unless we somehow know the future, it is hubris to decide that he will be not be able to improve the article when the finished film is released, specially as its pre-production and filming have proven to be decently sourcable and the article improvable. So in courtesy and good faith, we return it to him and politely say "keep working on it" and "help is available". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You put forward a good case - I would not be opposed to userfy the article, provided it is only move to the mainspace if and when its notability is apparent. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not entirely in disagreement, as I am NOT arguing the topic notable enough at this time for mainspace. We agree it is not, and if it had been, I would not even have suggested returning it to its author and would instead be arguing for keep. We allow premature articles to be worked on in a userspace, as that is what user sandboxes are for. We do not demand that in-work-drafts be mainspace ready, as that is determined by an entirely different set of criteria. Our taking it out of mainspace and allowing it to be worked on by its author until it is ready is a suitable and far less bitey alternative to outright deletion. Simply put, if he is unable to improve it, it will not be back. And unless we somehow know the future, it is hubris to decide that he will be not be able to improve the article when the finished film is released, specially as its pre-production and filming have proven to be decently sourcable and the article improvable. So in courtesy and good faith, we return it to him and politely say "keep working on it" and "help is available". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not doubt the verifiability of the film, I'm just not convinced that it is notable. I have no problem with userfication of articles which would be notable enough for Wikipedia - I'm not yet convinced as regards to this article. I'm not sure that the sources provided establish notability. The closest we get is probably this one; one its own, I don't think notability is established. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.