Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story

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:Imagi-King/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story. Topic has not been shown to satisfy our inclusion criteria at this point, userfying per WP:PRESERVE so as not to reinvent the wheel if things turn out otherwise. Skomorokh 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story

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

Non-notable motion picture. Not released by any major studio or established independent. No independent coverage of the film of any significance. No independent, non-primary references at all. Article appears to promote the film. Contested PROD, removed by the original author who stated that "I feel that any motion picture is notable," truly one of the more bizarre statements I've seen at Wikipedia in some time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @785 · 17:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as the film can meet WP:NF. Nice that it was created and shared through youtube, but it has received no coverage Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story. The author removed the prod with the polite summary "I feel that any motion picture is notable. It harms nobody to have an article on it and contributes to the overall span of knowledge of wikipedia"... but unless the assertions in the article can be sourced somewhere other than youtube, it does not expand knowledge... only opinion. Sorry. Let it go. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(In reply to Realkyhick) The film is being considered for screening at the Cork Film Festival, and will soon be featured on its website. Unfortunately until that time no independent references are available. I don't think its fair to say that the film is non-notable merely because it's not recognised by an established independent studio. I would like to know how you think the article appears to promote the film. And finally, your opinion of my opinion is irrelevant to this discussion. Imagi-King (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When an article about a new film has no supporting articles in reliable sources, it is often considered that Wikipedia is being used to promote the film, even if that was not the author's intention, as information on it does not exist elsewhere. From this end, and with due respect, it is felt that that is not what Wikipedia is for. Please review WP:PROMOTION. Glad to hear that it may receive festival coverage. When it does get press it will be welcomed back. You may consider storing a version at User:Imagi-King/sandbox/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story and continue working on it as sources become available. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion and contribution. I hope you'll appreciate that I'm no wikipedia expert and wasn't sure of how to create articles without publishing them. Thanks again. Imagi-King (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to MichaelQ's very cogent comments: There is a certain segment of the WP community that seems to think that anything that exists deserves its own Wikipedia article. Your comment seemed to indicate that you follow that line of thinking. Needless to say, I very much disagree. If the film receives major recognition at the Cork Film festival, it may be notable enough for inclusion, but the lack of any independent coverage that even verifies the existence of this film means that it is currently not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, in accordance with longstanding policy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't believe that anything in existence deserves its own article, but I personally felt this was a noteworthy film and having read the guidelines provided by MichaelQSchmidt I think the involvement of Tommy Tiernan (a "notable" person) in the film justifies its inclusion, if only for a time until an independent source can be cited, which as I have said will be very soon. Imagi-King (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though having a notable individual in a film might help in asserting the film's notability, it does not of itself give it. The notability of the actor belongs to the actor for his work elsewhere, and does not become the notability of the film's. Please look at NOTINHERITED and WP:NRVE. So if you click the red link User:Imagi-King/sandbox/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (the link will turn blue as soon there is something in the workspace) and copy your work into it, the work can be expanded improved even if the artcle gets temporarily deleted. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has decided that the threshold for notability is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:11, 13 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.