Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddha Wild: Monk in the Hut

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 23:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Wild: Monk in the Hut

Buddha Wild: Monk in the Hut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

NN movie - all of the sources are listings or press releases, no significant source or evidence of the multiple WP:RS that we would expect to see. Fredrick day 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same non-notable reasons given in the snowballed Anna Wilding AfD. Tarc 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sources are not listingss of press relases at all.SAG FOUDNAIOTN,ACADMEY FO ARTS AND SCINESE,LAMMMEL CINAMS,BUDDHA WILD.OCM and there are dozens of others.These are NOT press releases.This film played for over six weeeks in public cineams.very few film do that and we note only a few films on Wiki have done that.Any film tha plays in a cinema to gain theatrical release must be of certain standard.TGhere are dozens of links verfying this film and its established track record and high ranking.You are to stop taking down the links that are put up and stop defaming this film .You are in fact,as what you say is preposturely untrue showing relgious or racist bias.In regard sot press releases,so what.In order for press releases to be published and approved they have to go through several filters....We also not e there are several newspaper articles for this film wtaht were also taken down.There is so many significant soures and evidince.You or someone jsut keeps taking the links down.i ahve refered the mater to the wikipeda foundation and office a this is is blatent vandalism of this page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.29.208 (talk • contribs)
— 24.189.29.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please stop making wild and unfounded accusations. Sarah 13:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable and unverifiable. even if this film is borderline notable, the outrageous ongoing disruption and promotion by the film director's friend is untenable and just not worth it. It is very difficult to find reliable, non-trivial sources which are third party published, rather than self-published pr releases written by our friend below with his very distinctive writing style. Delete. And for our sanity, salt both this and Anna Wilding. Sarah 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TRUE>There is no distrubtion.Someone just keeps taking the links down straight away that are verfiable.You have no right to intefere with a studios film or anna wilding's work. This matter has been refferred to the Wikipedia Foundation. We ask you stop trying to destroy the credibility of Anna Wilding publicly,and staff her third party person who actually do know her.And her work We note all coporations, studios and distribution companiues and talnet issues press releases,through lawyers or otherwise.In order for them to be released they have to go through various qualifying filters.YOur arguments there are invalid.So take heed.This is valid work and we aks you stop removign links and newspapers articles and refernces on the film ot make it look like there are none.There is much. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.29.208 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an incredible amount of abuse and disruption and for the sake of your friend, I strongly urge you to stop. What you've posted above is exactly what we're talking about: self-promotional articles, not independent, verifiable reliable sources. Sarah 14:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I spent the better part of the last fifteen minutes trying to figure out if this film was notable or not. I started by checking on the external sources in the article. The links provided me with a couple of brief summaries and promoted the films as well. There was not anything in the external sources that could really be viewed as asserting notability. The article itself is completely unsourced, and in my opinion that is the biggest issue. If the the film was as widely shown as it was purported to be, there certainly there would be more information about it. Next, I went online to find my own reliable sources, and I could not find any. All I found was short blurbs or reviews. The article was created in April and we still don't have any sources five months later. As far as I'm concerned, this is a non notable film that was produced by a non notable director. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I think this should be deleted. --Cyrus Andiron 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete no actual assertions of notability. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:59, 20 September 2007 (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/Buddha_Wild:_Monk_in_the_Hut&oldid=1137658021"