Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination matters

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. JForget 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Destination matters

Insufficient evidence of notability for inclusion. Only references appear to be Amazon.com and the production's own site. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep. I disagree that this article should be deleted. It is clearly reference material to a short film being released on Amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shodanproductions (talk • contribs)

— Shodanproductions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:35, August 3, 2009 (UTC).

Shodanproductions (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a violation of the username policy (promotional username.) Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. user:blt8472 - I agree. This is reference to a short film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blt8472 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Blt8472 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a pilot that no one wanted to air. Hairhorn (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is several articles on www.destinationmatters.net/press which shows its viability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blt8472 (talk • contribs)

Sources from the production's own site are generally not enough to establish notability. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, third party references. Fails guidelines for inclusion. →javért ^stargaze 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the press site Vicenarian listed above has plenty of newspaper coverage, although it's all local stuff. Noisalt (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Imagine Magazine coverage was regional coverage in New England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blt8472 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete needs reliable third party references. --Bsay~~USD~~CSU[ π ] 01:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dan and crew deserve it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.29.151 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — 24.34.29.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the article that suggests notability, and nothing that I can find. That the movie is sold on Amazon is immaterial; no one doubts that it is. The "regional coverage" reported on their website, well, I'll wait until I see it in the article. I found nothing of any kind of substance. The IPs are coming out of the woodwork here, and I smell socks. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here is notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Some notability and local coverage. Can't really be merged with director or production company because none of them are ntoable and this is an independent production. Perhaps it can be userfied and if notability for the film/show or parties involved is established at a future date it can then be recreated. I don't think this work yet meets our notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not shown through reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep the sources are all newspaper and magazine articles. whether they are local or not is of not consequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.27.5 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — 12.104.27.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no recent edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Heck ... I live in the city where this was supposedly filmed. I subscribe to the newspaper the fluff paragraph was in. This is the first I've heard of it, and while that's of course not a valid deletion criterion it doesn't speak well for there being widespread local coverage, let alone those satisfying WP:N ... and I strongly suggest that the anonymous IPs piling in to vote Keep familiarize themselves with the pertinent Wikipedia polices and guidelines; that a film merely exists is not grounds for retention. What elements of WP:FILM does this unreleased indie film satisfy? Ravenswing 23:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice and userfy to author. Let the article return once the film is released and reviewed. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It hasn't been released and the coverage is local. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this is notable then it will make itself know and we won't need to endure many, many, many, many SPAs and a junkful of COI stuff to deal with. Spielberg doesn't edit the Jaws page. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a IMDB page for Destination Matters at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1484957/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.27.5 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and there have been many, many imdb pages for many, many films that have either never been made (as they don't get out of pre-production) or are not notable (we are not the imdb, so the low bar they set is not the bar we have). Darrenhusted (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or hoaxes that never get removed. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We believe you. That isn't in any way, shape or form pertinent. No one is claiming that this film doesn't exist. We just state that it fails to meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:FILM for notability. Ravenswing 21:03, 6 August 2009 (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.