Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daymaker

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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daymaker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable indie film, fails WP:GNG. Only coverage is a single news article. Prod removed without explanation. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I looked through the various google links above and came up empty. The coverage consists of primary sources, along with press releases and portals to watch the film online. The one reference provided in the article is simply a "local boy does good" and does not equate to disinterested, independent coverage. While the film received an award at the "Cleveland Indie Gathering" Film Festival, this is not a major film award and cannot be used to establish notability. The article was previously deleted at least twice (2007? and 2010) due to lack of notability and copyright infringement. It was then immediately recreated with copyvio removed, however, still fails notability per WP:NF and WP:GNG. Respectfully, Cindamuse (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I cannot find anything other than the already cited source in the article, and a single source does not make for notability. A third place award from a non-notable film festival doesn't really add to the cause, especially as it is only sourced from the festival's self-published web site. Already deleted twice, it may be time to salt this to avoid further recreations. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as above and per WP:NF. Clearly made no impact whatsoever when it was made 3 years ago and unlikely to anytime soon either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above The Eskimo (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPE. I found out that the best this one did in festivals was 3rd place "Best Feature Film - Drama/Comedy" at the "Cleveland Indie Gathering".[1] Not enough. Sad to say, but there is fishing boat somewhere called "Daymaker" and it has far more press than does this film... and then there is a hair salon on wheels that hosts a "Project Daymaker" which also has more press.[2] And while the one in-depth article about this film is quite decent,[3] the "one" is not nearly enough. And really folks... this one does not qualify for a rather bitey WP:SALTING... unless this brand new artcle had been recreated a number of times or is somehow a hotbed of dissention... and neither seem to be the case. It's simply a several-hours-old article about a film which has no sourcable notability. No need to over-react. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is (at least) the third creation of the article following previous deletions. Cindamuse (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I saw only this work of a newb editor and was not aware of any previous discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like mentioned above, fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2010 (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.