Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost on mars

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The efforts to find sources are to be commended, as is the desire to preserve content rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unfortunately, the links provided in this discussion lack the depth of coverage and/or the reliability to establish the required level of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Having said that, many of the delete !votes were rather weak- "per nom" or some variation of WP:JNN- and I would have hoped for a better quality of discussion, but given the length of time for which this discussion has been open, it's unlikely it will improve and the consensus is very much in favour of deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost on mars

edit
Lost on mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film? Can't see anything in imdb that woud indicate this film ever did anything. It was made for $100,000 (and looks it), and there is no indication at imdb that it ever made any money. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What do you want? Please be specific there are legitimate news paper articles listed on the page, websites as well. I checked Wikipedia and they state News paper articles are legitimate, so I posted them. Will you please tell me what would make you happy and I will locate it if it I can. I am unsure what you are after, if you would just tell me, but be specific, it might help.
    Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholun (talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:NOTE, the sources need to be independent and reliable. It is not clear that the external links meet those criteria. The two "Second Source" links (that were just added yesterday) may satisfy that criteria. I took the liberty of converting them into inline citations.—RJH (talk)
  • Comment Everard proudfoot put a deletion tag on the page, after he deleted my secondary proof on the page. I had to re edit the page and put the news paper articles back on the page after he removed them. I think he is abusive to other users. One thing I have noticed is he will not be specific about information he wants, he automatically starts putting delete messages on your hard work pages you created. He has been harassing me from day one with threats of deletions. I was trying to add this movie for a friend, but never thought in a million years other users could be so mean. If they would have contacted me with their concerns I would have fixed any problems they had and a simple welcome to the site would have been nice as well. I am new here. Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholun (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only edit I have made to the article is this one, adding the afd template. I'll take your apology for your accusation that I have removed anything. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Danger which show that Sholun's accusations against me are totally untrue. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, check out the history of this page to see the vandalism that Sholun has done here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on Here’s the page after he put his deletion tag on, look at the bottom the second source link is gone[1] Now look at this link to the page at bottom of page where source was before he edited it. This proves he did something, or made a mistake and deleted it, but it was there and before he messed around editing with his delete notice. I put it up to show that there where reliable sources and someone took it down and put a deletion notice on the article.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments concerning the above remarks by 99.34.109.238.
  1. 99.34.109.238 is probably Sholun. Apart from other evidence, 99.34.109.238 has sometimes posted comments and signed them as Sholun, as for example here.
  2. It is impossible to tell from the above comment what "source" 99.34.109.238 thinks was removed by Everard Proudfoot, but the only difference between the version of the article before Everard Proudfoot edited it and the version after he edited it is the addition of the AfD notice. (See here.) If a source was removed then it wasn't Everard Proudfoot who removed it. (However, I can't see that any source was removed.)
  3. 99.34.109.238 has made numerous attempts to disrupt AfD discussions, both this one and another. These edits have included repeatedly removing AfD notices, and blanking AfD discussions (including this one).
  4. Sholun has also been disruptive in AfD discussion, as here. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All true. Note, though, that the disruption you cite is from yesterday, when the (new) editor was in a panic over this deletion. I and other editors are attempting to engage with them to try to a) calm them down, and b) finding some constructive solution. We've been somewhat successful with a), not so much with b) - but actual disruption appears to have ceased yesterday evening. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I hope that progress can continue, and if the editor has now learnt better how to work on Wikipedia then that is great. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable film that fails WP:N and WP:NF. Two of the sources are simply local interest pieces noting the local woman who was in the film. Local news articles about local people cannot confer notability. The only other reliable source does not give the film significant coverage, it is simply a quick look at various films about Mars. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for saying Proud foot deliberately removed the resources and that was wrong of me without solid proof to make that statement. I can only hope he works with me to solve these article problems rather than request to delete the articles. I correct my statement by saying the new resources I put up were removed right after he put up another deletion notice, anyone could have removed it after that. I hope that someone will help work out a solution to keep the articles rather than attack me for my ignorance how to use this site. If the articles can’t be redirected or some other alternate solution discovered, then I accept the deletion. I only hope that you see that independent movies without million dollar budgets and revenue should have a place on this website and help me find a place for it. The two news articles I posted from the Times courier are a professional solid news agencies with over fifty years in the business, with ties from Decatur Illinois to Chicago Illinois news agencies. I think they deserve the respect that they are a legitimate news organization. If you’re debating this movie should not be included because it didn’t make millions of dollars, or how many people watched them than this would be an injustice to the true core of any movie. There’s no scale to follow how many have to watch a particular movie to make it notable or not, both of these movies where notable to some extent maybe not by millions, but thousands possibly. I have provided legitimate news articles from reliable sources Times courier, listings from IMDB, the Mars Society among other, all which are notable in their own right. There comes to a point though where you can’t satisfy being listed in every news paper and company article to satisfy everyone. I truly hope you reconsider deleting these articles. comment added by Sholun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is user edited and not a reliable source, nor are inclusions in directories a sign of notability. Also, the Mars Society in the article is not the national society, it is a single branch in a single city and the page listed is not a review, nor significant coverage, it is a listing of titles they watched on movie nights. I'd urge you to read WP:NF and [{WP:N]] to understand why the film is not notable. Time Courier is a reliable source, no one has disputed that, but the articles are local pieces on a local person who happened to be in the films. That does not confer notability on the film nor her (anymore than a story about a business in its local paper makes the business notable). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: IMDB is not "user edited", as users do not have access to the IMDB database editing tools. While certainly anyone can "submit" information which then goes through some sort of vetting process by IMDB staffers, it is the IMDB staffers themselves who are the ones with access to the database editing tools, and the staffers are the ones doing the editing... based upon the information submited and the IMDB vetting processes. That said however, and otherwise in agreement, simply being listed in the database, no matter how the information got there, does not impart any notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see little credibility with any of these sites that I found as references found on the Mission to mars articale. There is synopsis of the movies, reviews, etc, nothing too much different than the references I posted on my articles. What’s the difference other than they spent millions to make it? I see no well known news articles from the New York Times posted. Also they listed rotten tomatoes as a source and so did I but it was moved down on my page like it wasn’t accepted. I am not trying to make anyone mad, but I am trying to show my stuff I have post should count as credibility if the stuff below count as a creditable news sources. These links are the references to the movie Mission to Mars that I looked up from this site. Thanks for all the help, theres an awful lot of stuff to read here. Mission to mars comment added by Sholun
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Box Office Mojo is a reliable source for the box office earnings of a film. Rotten Tomatoes critics reviews are reliable sources. They both clearly meet WP:RS. Steven Dillon is not the source, he is the author of a book which is a reliable source. Are you really claiming that you don't think Slant Magazine and the Cannes Film Festival are "credible"?? The Caltech isn't and should be removed. There is a huge difference in those versus "your" article. One, they are all third party sources and except the Caltech source, reliable ones. The Mission to Mars article is in horrible shape, but it is obviously notable from the 100+ critical reviews of the film listed on RT and the significant coverage it received in numerous sources, including the New York Times[3]. Just because the sources are not listed doesn't mean they don't exist. In your film's case, they simply don't exist. This discussion is not JUST about the sources you put in the article, but all available ones. There are none for this film or your other. Throwing sour grapes as another film article of fairly obvious notability is not a good way to try to make your argument that this article is somehow notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userfy if requested. I made the article prettier... I converted the Wilipedia in-line cites to Wikilinks... I placed the two local news articles into proper ref format... but the majority of the text cannot be properly soucred, and there is no coverage of this film after March 24, 2003. While yes, it exists, and yes it is being distributed... not of the usual sources do anything but repeat what is on IMDB or the production's website. To User:Sholun... all you have shown us is that Mission to Mars has the coverage and notability that Lost on Mars does not. Find us some more coverage of THIS film that is not in blogs or self-published websites. Show us proof that it has screened at a festival anytime after 2007. Show us that schools have included it in the sylabus. Something. Please. Show us how it meets WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Blogs or self-published websites I already posted a bunch, try going to the page and look at the bottom of the page. Rotten tomatoes, the mars society, IMDB, Sci-Fi online, io9, cinemarx, vidoeta, times courier. I see no self published, or blogs, what are you talking about? From what I have read from a few statements above about being reputable, you have to make millions and have thousands of reviews and articles to list a movie here. What happen to the learning portion to the Encyclopedia? These are low budget Independent movies. There are some people who like this stuff and what to learn more about it. You have to look at the budget and be fair about it, without millions of dollars and a fantastic marketing department; you’re not going to get any movie in the New York Times, etc. I have proven without a doubt these movies exist, and they have been distributed by a reputable distributor. These movies have been listed in the news from reputable news agencies, which I provided. You’re never going to be satisfied, and you know these movies haven’t made millions. They are what they are and there are people who like to learn about independent Science fiction, so where do they turn to, the Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia comment added by Sholun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and Self-published sources are NOT reliable sources. An entry in RT, not actual reviews, does not give notability (it is the reviews at RT from actual critics - not users, that do that). IMDB is not a reliable sources. The company itself can not confer notability. Throwing a bunch of links for people related to the film do not add notability. As you already noted, it is a "low budget independent movie" that is apparently completely unnotable. Wikipedia is not a catch all for every film every made, it provides coverage on notable works. There are many low budget, independent and b-movies which are notable without spending millions of dollars, etc, this film isn't one of them. Existence does not make it notable nor noteworthy. If they want to learn about non-notable films, they turn to google, or maybe some Wikia if there is one. Wikipedia isn't for those films. The simple point is - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics, with notability determined by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. You have not shown that this film has any such coverage at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The places I posted are not self published blogs, or Websites. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I listed them above and they are legitimate business. As far as I know these places will not let anyone just list a movie on their website at will. Rotten tomatoes, the mars society, IMDB, Sci-Fi online, io9, cinemarx, vidoeta, times courier are not self published websites. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Errm, in answer to "I don’t know where you’re getting that from", could it possibly be from your previous comment above, where you wrote "Blogs or self-published websites I already posted a bunch"? Also IMDB certainly does allow anyone to contribute material. I have not checked the others. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the external links:
  • Neither of the IMDB sources are reliable.
  • The Westfield Entertainment link is self-promotion and hence is not independent.
  • The Rotten Tomatoes link is for Empire of Danger. The film "Lost on Mars" is not mentioned. hence it couldn't even be used as a cite to demonstrate the Empire of Danger is the sequel.
  • The Mars Society link may be reliable, but it is as local as the Journal Gazette and Times Courier cites.
  • The Io9 site looks like a blog.
  • As far as I know, the Amazon site does no validation of the reviewers. It only serves as proof that the video exists and can be purchased. Can an Amazon page be considered proof of notability?
  • I'm not sure about the cinemarx site; it looks to be in romanian.
  • Sci-fi online is a cult website. I'm not sure that's reliable.
  • I couldn't find any publication information about the VideoETA site. It is unclear how independent or reliable it should be considered.
These just aren't the types of solid, reliable sites that I would normally use as a source. As MichaelQSchmidt suggested, I would userfy it. Suitable evidence of notability may turn up at a later date.—RJH (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I respect your opinion sir and I am not mad, I am just see things different from you and I am expressing them here. I just don’t understand how you could say that the Mars society is Local, they have chapters all over the world just look at their Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mars_Society it’s a huge organization, very legitimate and well respected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk • contribs)
    Here’s the link to lost on mars on rotten tomato’s, it was easy to find http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lost_on_mars/
    I don’t think Sci-Fi online is a cult site, but even if it was its reliable. I know it’s been around for over ten years, so it’s not a fly by night organization.
    VideoETA site is a reliable source and the movies are listed there. Just because there’s not a big article written about the movies doesn’t mean they are not important. Actually it shows they identified them as creditable movies, so they listed them on their website.
    The Imdb is a very well known and powerful entity in the entertainment world, there’s no question about that. Reliable Information that is debatable of any organization, can you honestly believe any organization out there no matter how old or big they are can be reliable (Example New York Times)? Both of these movies passed a very rigorous process to get accepted on the Imdb. This proves that they have some notability or they would have never made it that far. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB does not have "rigorous" processes, and it is the long standing consensus of Wikipedia's community that IMDB, just like any other user edited site, is NOT a reliable source per WP:RS. Further, IMDb does not show any notability at all, it is a directory service. They list any and every movie made, with no discrimination. VideoETA is not considered a reliable source by the same page. It is a DVD listing site that gives absolutely no information about itself and does NOT meet WP:RS. The RT page for Lost on Mars is, frankly, useless. Without any actual critical reception, it is just one of their directory listings, and again provides no notability. RT itself doesn't confer notability, it just often links to sources (when they exist) for films. And yes, Mars Society is national, but that is irrelevant. The National group isn't saying anything about this film, it is just listed on a long list of films about Mars that a single local chapter watched. That is mere trivia and their short summary is not a review in any real sense. Sci-Fi Online is a cult site, by its own admission[4], and looking at the About Me, it is just another random fansite. The editors are not notable nor industry folks nor known critics. They are just fans. Wikipedia does not consider fansites to be reliable sources nor do they confer any sort of notability to anything. I'm not telling you anything anyone else has already told you, and I hope at some point you will realize that we are simply telling you the way things work at Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you are so upset and your opinions are noted. There are many who disagree with you about the IMDB. You are wrong about the IMDB; you cannot just add any movie to their website it’s more than a directory, or list of films. For example if a movie was not distributed by a reputable distributor, than it has no chance of being added to their organization. You make it sound like anyone can just become a member and add their home movies to the IMDB that’s just not the way it works. They will decline any movie or actor if they don’t have a creditable back ground, if you don’t believe me go shoot some footage with a camcorder about anything and try for yourself, it will never get published on the Imdb. It has to meet guide lines and they do have people who review credibility of movies before they add it. I am curious who I am talking back and forth with, are you a user like me, or an official Wikipedia employee. No dis-respect just curious. Thanks --99.34.109.238 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "upset", that would require me to care one way or another. I am just one of several people trying to explain things to you in a way you might understand, though we all seem to be failing. It is irrelevant what "other people" think about IMDB. Wikipedia consensus on the matter is very clear - IMDB is NOT a reliable source and being listed there is NOT a sign of notability. And sorry, but IMDB will list any film distributed in pretty much any fashion, except home movies of course. They have listings for various self-published random films that have no notability at all, but they were "released" to the internet or what have you. Wikipedia is not a film directory, we have notability guidelines for films and do not host articles for a film simply because it exists. There are no "official Wikipedia employees" in discussions. Editors are editors. There are editors with extra rights, i.e. administrators and crats, who can enforce policies, block editors, deal with page deletions, close these kinds of discussions and determine consensus, etc, but they are also volunteer editors, same as you, me, and everyone else here. Editors who have been here for many years with a lengthy edit history are sometimes considered "experienced" in various matters where they edit frequently and consulted by newer editors working on learning the ropes. Sometimes said editors "adopt" new editors to more formally help them learn how Wikipedia works. The polices and guidelines here reflect the community consensus on common issues. You have been pointed to them repeatedly in this discussion and at the other AfD and on both your user talk pages. Whether any one editor agrees or disagrees with them is irrelevant, if it has the consensus of the larger community. Said editor is expected to abide by consensus, not their personal beliefs. Same as working in a job - whether you like a rule at your company or not, you are expected to follow it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with AnmaFinotera, so I have nothing to add.—RJH (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let's find third party sources rather than deleting the article. This article needs sources, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. After sources are found the article will be fine. See this search. Plenty of sources. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random google hits are not sources. As noted above, multiple editors have already looked through those. The few reliable sources are not usable for establishing notability (you can't make yourself notable by talking about yourself). Fansites, personal websites, and blogs do not establish notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a fact that the websites that I have posted are not Self-published sources, which eliminates that argument. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This was clearly given by the Tomes courier news article, with over fifty years of news experiences. There is nothing mentioned in Wikipedia that says how the article has to be written in any specific way. It is considered a reliable source. There is no specific set number of sources you have to provide ether. It just asks to be reliable. The website that I have posted are reputable until you can prove they are not. If any websites are questionable they can be challegeged by you, but you must provide proof they are not reliable. I haven’t seen any proof from any articles above that would suggest these are not reputable websites, other than you have a gut feeling they are. The person challenging is not by far excluded from providing proof that these websites are not valid reputable websites. You must show some kind of proof to challenge these websites rather than just saying I know they are I heard it from Joe down the street there not. Why is someone on here taking down all the external web links from these the site? Until this is solved they should stay up for the person who makes the final decision. I will put them up again; please let them stay up so the administrator can look at all the data on the page. Thank You, Kim --99.34.109.238 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, you get one "Keep". Second, it is not a "fact" and no one, thus far, consensus has agreed that none of the links you have thrown on the article give the topic notability. It has already been repeatedly explained to you. You don't prove sites are unreliable, you must prove they are and you have not done that. You have been left notes on your user talk page as to why some links were removed - that you continue restoring and continue repeating the same arguments here over and over despite everyone's attempt to education you about why you are acting inappropriately is showing a very excessive interest in promoting these films and makes me wonder what relation you have to them. As an aside, please learn how to format you remarks for Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Maybe I am wrong but I thought this was where you presented your case to keep something from being deleted. Isn’t this what this page is for? The delete tag says “Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry”, so I am sharing my thoughts. If you keep removing the external links from the page then how can the final judge make his decision without all the evidence? I wrote a couple articles and now I am presenting my case through the proper channel on this page, that’s all; if this isn’t the place then I have made a terrible mistake. I hope a solution can be devised to keep the articles and you senior members might step up to bat at the last minute and use your expertise and knowledge to help find alternate solution rather than just delete them. Thanks --99.34.109.238 (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is the place to share coments, but there is a preferred manner in which this is done... with "politely" being the formost, and "informed" being a strong second. No one here doubts that the film exists or that it has been screened, and while we are appreciative of your wish to retain the article, there is more required in showing enough notability to merit inclusion other than just in it existing. Please review WP:NF, paying close attention to that guideline's "general principles" and its "other evidence of notability" sections. As for why some external links may have been removed... that would be because there are links that are acceptable and ones that are not. Please review WP:EL, paying close attention to WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE, and most specially to WP:ELNO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering: do you know someone close to production of this film or were you part of the production? How do you know so much about the production, yet there is absolutely no sources that provide any of that information (this goes for the Empire of Danger article too)? Please see WP:COI. Thanks. Mike Allen 01:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails notability. The only argument is that there are notable sources available, but they have yet to be found and provided. As stated, IMDb does not count. Mike Allen 8:06 pm, Today (UTC−5)
  • Comment: My older sister was one of the actresses, so I posted this article, that’s why I know so much. But that isn’t the issue here; you are pulling away from the point here. I am proud of my sister and I wanted to post this article, why won’t you help? --Sholun (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, it is an issue. You have a conflict of interest and you're incapable of writing a neutral article.. even if it did have sources. You are the one that pulled away my point. Please don't remove other people's comments. Mike Allen 01:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like a real gentleman. Thank you for showing that there is still kind individuals in the world such as you. Conflict of interest Please post the Wikipedia article to confirm that it is an issue to post a movie because you know one of the actors please? I posted about the movies, not her silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk • contribs) 22:24, May 21, 2010
She is your sister, you made articles for the movies she is in. That is a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is in one of the movies, not both movies. Anyway I want to redirect or merge the articles to another source. Will you help me do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to prefix every remark with "comment", just indent as illustrated above when you are replying to somewhere. Where would you propose the article's go? I can't think of any appropriate targets for merging within Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any where on the mars society site it could go? You have to understand I am new and I have no idea how this works. Thank you for considering helping if you can. I just don’t understand all this; can I delete the pages myself? I didn’t want all this; I thought I was doing a good thing. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it couldn't go there as the Mars Society had nothing to do with the film itself. To be merged some where, it must directly relate to the target article. As the production company is also unnotable and has no article, there really doesn't seem to be a place for it here on Wikipedia at this time. I looked around Wikia and could not find any active, Mars or Sci Fi oriented Wikia that might be a good place to try. However, you might see if they could be transwikied to the the Movie Wikia[5], as Wikia does not have the same inclusion guidelines as Wikipedia. Only an administrator can delete an article, though if you feel they should be deleted you can just note here and let the AfD run its conclusion. You can also add {{db-author}} at the top of the articles to have them deleted before the AfD concludes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much for trying to help. I guess I will just set back and wait to see the outcome. I wish now I hadn’t even posted them on here. When I posted them I had no idea that all this stuff went on. I thought you posted things on here and that was it, boy I was wrong. It was just hard to see someone stomp a big deletion notice on my article that I spent two days working on. I have never been around this kind of thing before, it was scary to me. I was hurt and I tried to do the best I could to defend my article. I know it’s not that good, but it was mine and I was proud of it. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We all realized that you didn't mean harm, which is why most of us just kept patiently explaining it to you and just making corrections as need. Nothing wrong with being proud of your sister's accomplishment and in your work on the article's, its just Wikipedia was the wrong venue for letting the world know (though in a way, at least you did let a few folks know :-) ). Wikipedia can take awhile to learn the ropes of. I've been here over five years now, and I'm so embarrassed at some of my earlier edits and articles I've made (I've even had some deleted) :-P There is a tutorial thing that helps some, and the welcome links left on your user and IP talk pages might help, if you decide you want to try editing in other areas. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: so we cannot find many google hits right now. So what about 7 or 8 years ago because Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. This is the problem with articles about older movies. Sources get harder to find, but that does not mean that they are not out there. We should at least spend a little extra time looking for sources before deleting the article, because notability does not degrade over time. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not operate on that concept. There is a difference between sources not existing and their being difficult to find. In this case, they simply don't exist beyond the local paper coverage. We don't keep articles around that have no demonstrable notability just in case a source ever appears. Any editor always has the option of requesting the article be put in their user space to go search for sources at their leisure, but at this point no one has provided any demonstrable evidence that there is even a likelihood of sources exists. So why spend "extra time" on a pointless exercise? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does, the article I cited is an official policy. It does not matter how hard the sources are to find it matters that there are sources. I am sorry if you dislike my defending of this article, but I am an inclusionist (that is why I joined the article rescue squadron ) and firmly believe that there may be sources for this article and they just need finding. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that is not a policy, official or otherwise, Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time is a personal essay with no standing nor meaning. Further, it deals with notability not being lost once established. No notability has been established for this film at all. You nor anyone else has proven that there are sources. By your statement, anyone could basically make up anything, say "the sources exist, I don't know where but they do so you have to keep it". Surely you see the logical problem here? Wikipedia doesn't operate on the crystal ball principle. What matters is some verifiable evidence of significant coverage of this film in independent, reliable sources. There is none. Not all films are notable. Many, in fact, are not. If you want to be a member of ARS, that's well and good. Michael (who stated delete) is a member as well. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is in the "see also" section of Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time and Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is a official policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Quadrant (talk • contribs) 09:34, May 24, 2010
And? That does not make it official policy nor give it any special standing. You are also not addressing the fact that no notability has been demonstrated at all. Notability is not temporary does not mean "well, can't find sources, but since I think its notable, it must have been at some point" - it means notability IS demonstrable at some point and thus is still notable. I.E. If there were a ton of actual, independent, third-party reliable sources from when this film was released then it would be notable. There are not, so it is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage, but not significant coverage. Though that second source is a good start. Mike Allen 02:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:

Thank You Dream Focus for taking the time to find those articles. I have to say regardless if they help or not, your attempt alone to put up a shield to protect the articles was an honorable attempt and for that I salute you.--99.34.109.238 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting rationale: Some sources have been found for the article late in the discussion, so it would seem reasonable to reconsider the above arguments in the light of those sources. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "keep" by Alpha Quadrant struck out.

Since you've already said keep, it might be better to say comment as I did. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alpha Quadrant appears to be saying we should keep the article on the basis of sources that he or she guesses probably exist, or have I misunderstood? Wikipedia's notability criteria are based on sources that have been shown to exist, not on ones that we think probably exist, but which we haven't actually seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

Would this count http://wn.com/lost_on_mars_two it’s with world news network a reputable media source.

World news network http://wn.com/world --99.34.109.238 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A web site having a search engine of videos that includes the trailer for the film does not count at all towards notability. It isn't significant coverage either, it isn't coverage at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the concerted efforts of Sholun/99.34.109.238, no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources has been produced. Alpha Quadrant has repeatedly argued on the basis of hypothetical good sources that may exist somewhere, or may perhaps have once existed, but has failed to actually produce any. Dream Focus has produced a couple of sources, but they do not constitute substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at this link about reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources And I can’t find anything specific about Local news papers not being reliable and used as sources. I read they like them to be high end news organizations, but nothing about they have to be High end. I also looked around for anything that said there had to be a specific number of sources you have to have to get accepted. I have found no set number amount written in the rules on how many sources you have to provide. It may be there, but I haven’t found it yet. Where does it talk about how many sources you have to have? There’s three up already and the Mars society is also there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one keep so changed this to a comment again. "significant, third-party coverage" is an issue of notability, not reliable sourcing. Local news articles about local people is not independent, nor is any of the "sources" found significant coverage for the film. I believe I and others have explained the difference above, but please let me know if you need further clarification. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody, so far as I am aware, has suggested that local newspapers are necessarily unreliable or can never be used as sources. It is also not a question of "rules" specifying a particular number of sources, but a question of guidelines giving general guidance as to what sort of evidence is suitable. Clearly extensive reporting in twenty major national and international news media is better evidence of notability than a one sentence mention in one free neighbourhood news-sheet, and in cases which fall between these two extremes it is a question of making a judgement, not a question of finding a "rule" that tells us the correct answer. This discussion will eventually be closed by an administrator who will decide whether notability has been demonstrated on the basis of the arguments advanced here, not on the basis that there is or is not a rule specifying a number of sources. As for the statement "There’s three up already" (referring to news sources cited), two of the three are about another film, and mention that it is a sequel to "Lost on Mars": they do not give substantial coverage of "Lost on Mars". In addition, the title of one of the reports "Local women star in independent film" is in itself an indication of the character of the reporting. The fact that is considered notable enough to report is that people from the local area are to be in a film, not the film itself, in addition to the fact that the film in question is not "Lost on Mars". So the subject of the report is two steps away from "Lost on Mars": from Lost on Mars to another film, and from there to the fact that some of the actors in that second film are "local". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been searching and found a few things that may be helpful. http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/archives/lost-on-mars-2002/ http://apolloguide.com/mov_fullrev.asp?CId=4612&Specific=5408 http://www.sci-fi-online.com/reviews/video/02-12-23_LostMars.htm Thediva (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People's personally blogs and websites are not reliable sources and do not establish any notability at all. None of those are even remotely close to be reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan Shumate is a big time editorial person and a member of the online film critic’s society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Film_Critics_Society Cracknel is also a member, so they are creditable and their articles should count. There not local. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. That means nothing. Anyone can get in OFCS so long as they are prolific writer with some decent writing skills. That doesn't make them professional critics nor reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I don’t understand is on your page you have an article called Grizzly Rage that apparently you worked on that article, or approve of it. I see no big editorial news from the New York Times, or Roger Ebert. I see a lot of selfpomoted references for this movie and blogs, sites that list it, but don’t talk about it much. What’s the difference? Why did that get accepted? Some of those references don’t even lead to anything about the movie Grizzly they talk about the production company, not the movie. I am curious. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one has asked for reviews from the New York Times nor Ebert, we do require reliable sources. Grizzly Rage has received significant coverage in DVD Talk, Fangoria, Monsters and Critics.com, UGO Entertainment, DVD Verdict, and Bloody-Disgusting.com, all of which meet Wikipedia's criteria for being WP:RS, and as they are third-party sources, establish the film's notability. Regardless, as has already been explained to you once pointing at other articles and saying "well what about that one" does not further your argument at all, and at this point it seems you are grasping at straws and trying anything to "save" this article on this unnotable film. I would highly recommend letting it go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UGO ENTERTAINMENT http://www.ugo.com/ no coverage posted of grizzly Rage
DVD VERDICT http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/grizzlyrage.php this isn’t any more coverage than the sites I posted About Lost. The reviewer doesn’t even sign his name
DVD TALK http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/33072/grizzly-rage/ List a review on their site and the reviewer is a member of the online film critic’s society, but you pointed out earlier that meant nothing to be a member of that organization.
Fangoria I couldn’t even find the listing on grizzle Rage
BLOODY –disgusting BLOODY –disgusting http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/includes/site_search.php this site is a basic listing.
MOSTERS AND CRITICS http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ Came up empty on that one too.
This Grizzle Rage movie got accepted on some on same kind of sites just like I posted that lost was on and you deleted them as non creditable. Why did Grizzly get accepted, when it’s not even listed on half the sites you listed or it got accepted on a review from a reviewer nobody has even heard about?
--99.34.109.238 (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately it's up to the closing administrator. You have not really helped your "case", especially when you keep bringing up other stuff. Mike Allen 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Honestly, at this point this is getting ridiculously pathetic. DVD Verdict Reviewer's name is right at the top. That you are incapable of finding the coverage directly linked from the article is irrelevant. That you are continuing to try to discredit a GA rated article that has demonstrably more significant coverage in actual reliable sources than this film is pathetic. The article has the actual direct links to the coverage. Your inability to find it is not our issue. Your continued random comments and ridiculous attacks are doing nothing but drawing out this AfD that has already run far long than it should. You have been given ample time to find coverage and could not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(remove repetition) Please do not move this and put it at the top. You’re messing up the decision.
So in other words you don’t have an answer why there not listed or have any comments about the reviewer’s creditability about grizzly Rage. Hey you posted them, so you’re the one who should post the direct link to back up your comments when you add examples. And this isn’t ridiculously or pathetic, the administrator gave additional time to add comments and sources to this final determination.--99.34.109.238 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Properly formatting your badly formatted comments and putting them in their proper place does not mess up anything. Please learn at least the basics of the way a discussion here works and is formatted (see WP:TALK. I already answered your remarks, repeatedly, and am not wasting my time copy/pasting the links from the article here, nor wasting my time justifying this silliness. The discussion was relisted to give additional time for NEW comments and to see if the last comments changed anyone's mind. Not for you to keep making the same pointless attacks against other articles and non-arguments. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here’s another site it’s on. http://www.scifidimensions.com/Mar03/indygiveaway.htm I keep finding them, so there out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the source must be reliable, and being mentioned in a random give away isn't even close to significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - How many sources do we need to put in this article before it is considered notable and reliable? The articles for creation guidelines say a minimum of two, but three or more are preferred. This article now has four reliable sources. So why is this notability debate still going on? Notability has been proven. Two sources may be local, but the other two sources are not. I request a speedy close. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close is beyond not an option, and no, notability has not been proven. Random mentions on unreliable personal sites and blogs is not significant coverage and doesn't make it notable. Random appearances of its trailer also do not make it notable. The sources in the article have already been adequately discussed above and its already well explained that they do not give the FILM significant coverage. Tossing them in the article doesn't some how change that. You may wish to better read the basics of WP:N and how an AfD works. You can't just decide that because you personally believe its notable because it got a random mention in three local articles about a local person and is listed on RT like every other film ever made, doesn't make it reality. Reality is, if the only people who care about the film are the local papers of someone in it, and even they talk more about the people and not the film - it isn't notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it meets notability. Nothing in real life is random. News sources do not put topics into a hat and the topics they pull they write about. They look for topics that are important, or notable as we call it here. The video notability requirements are there to keep YouTube videos with no notability off of wikipedia. I believe that if the movie is important enough to have at least significant local coverage then it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. And we don't know for sure that there are not other sources elsewhere. A topic does not become notable only after a newspaper, such as the New York Times, mentions them. If a topic has had significant coverage then it is considered notable. It does not matter of the coverage is all in one state of the United States (local) or international coverage, the importance of the topic remains the same. Topics do not have to be published by a well known newspaper before notability can be established. Notability is established by the number of people who know or knew about a topic or want(ed) to know about the topic. Just because the movie did not get as much coverage as, say Star Trek (2009) doesn't mean the topic is not notable. Take cities for example. They will not get coverage beyond local coverage, unless something very important happened there or something unique is there. This may not be the official Wikipedia policy, but I am just using WP:COMMONSENSE, if the topic was notable enough to have coverage in at least one region, then why is in not notable enough for Wikipedia? --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, if my local paper mentions my name 2-3 times, I'm notable? No, that is not how it works. And even using your own incorrect argument, the film STILL isn't notable as the local sources didn't give IT significant coverage, they talked about people who happened to be in this film, and the film was only mentioned in that context. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources - local papers talking about local people are not third-party. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Local newspapers are not affiliated with the movie producers. Therefore they are third party. If the newspaper was owned by someone in the movie's friend/relative then it would be first party. The movie did not pay the newspaper to write the article. The newspaper wrote the article of their own free will. Therefore the articles are third party. First party sources come from the creator of the topic. Newspapers report, they do not advertise unless payed. This is why news papers are considered reliable sources. You cannot say that a article is not notable just because a particular newspaper did not write about the topic. A newspaper source, that has a good reputation for being correct, is just as a important of a source as, say the Washington Post. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, LOCAL newspapers talking about LOCAL people are not "first party" - they are covering local news. They may be reliable, but that doesn't make their topics notable when they are the only ones talking about it. Local papers can't make local films notable anymore than they can make local people and companies notable. You are, again, confusing notability with reliability which are two different issues. The film is not notable, and no amount of arguing that they are just because they were briefly mentioned in public interest pieces in local papers talking about the local people in it will change that.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did not say either "delete" or "keep" in my previous comments, because it seemed to me that editors arguing for "keep" were doing so without an understanding of what Wikipedia's notability criteria are, and perhaps if it was made clear to them they might be able to produce better evidence of notability, and I was willing to allow time for this to be done. However, the criteria have now been explained repeatedly at length, and after thirteen days both Sholun/99.34.109.238 and Alpha Quadrant have continued to argue largely on grounds which do not relate to Wikipedia's notability criteria. Nine days ago Alpha Quadrant said "This article needs sources, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. After sources are found the article will be fine." However, those sources have still not been found. We still have no evidence of notability under Wikipedia's criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It’s funny that you won’t answer to the question. That means that I have a great point. If the Administrator takes down lost, then Grizzle should be taken down also. We have showed you time and time again of the coverage and you denied it all. The same type of coverage Grizzle Rage has, which you approve on your page. It’s still up to the administrator, but I know I am right with this one, Grizzle Rage doesn’t hold anymore coverage than lost dose. It has website listings, a few reviews, nothing that is wide spread coverage like you keep insinuating Lost needs. Even the website that you posted came up with dead ends. . Instead of claiming that there are links, why don’t you post them? I challenged your links above that you posted and they came up negative. Apparently you do not respect me, nor do you respect the administrator who allowed time for more comments and sources. I am presenting my case and I feel I am making good solid points. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 00:44, 31 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lost_on_mars&oldid=1089094941"