Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Eleven
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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Summer Eleven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This 2010 movie (IMDb entry) has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I cannot find any reviews of the movie nor any news articles about it. A Google News Archive search for "Summer Eleven" "Kell" (Kell is the last name of the director) retrieves two passing mentions from the Chinese publication Xinhuanet.com. Summer Eleven fails GNG. Goodvac (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment considering the article had existed for less than an hour when this went up, we may want to give it a bit of a chance to be wikied. As for not being able to find "any" reviews, here's one I found as the very first entry from clicking the link above (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). This is where it shows up with a summary from Rotten Tomatoes. Just saying. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should have been clearer—movie reviews from reliable sources. The four reviews from Common Sense Media are from users including parents and an 11-year-old kid. This source is definitely not reliable and thus does not establish notability.
The Rotten Tomatoes source is also insufficient in establishing notability, as a summary duplicated on many movie sites does not constitute significant coverage. Goodvac (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Didn't say they were enough. Simply pointing out info found within 3 first clicks combined with the short time in existence of the article before being nominated. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did thorough research in an attempt to find reliable sources for this movie. I found the same links you did and recognized that they either were unreliable or did not constitute significant coverage, but I failed to foresee that someone would characterize them as indications of notability.
Whether an article asserts notability in its current form is not the concern of AfD. AfD seeks to determine if there are enough sources to establish notability through the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Please read above- no one said these were reliable or would constitute the "indication" of notability. Was simply info put out to make for a more thorough discussion. Rotten Tomatoes is an oft cited site throughout Wiki so I believed this would be a decent starting point. As far as assertion and establishing we also don't have to judge "current form" based upon 45-50 minutes. We don't often consider an article needing to be at peak within its first hour. However I have not added a Keep vote yet so I am not saying either is correct yet. That is all. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not said that an article must be perfect immediately after creation. We are considering notability (based on sources), not the article quality.
Okay. Thank you for your contributions to this discussion—two links that in terms of film notability count for nothing. Goodvac (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not said that an article must be perfect immediately after creation. We are considering notability (based on sources), not the article quality.
- Please read above- no one said these were reliable or would constitute the "indication" of notability. Was simply info put out to make for a more thorough discussion. Rotten Tomatoes is an oft cited site throughout Wiki so I believed this would be a decent starting point. As far as assertion and establishing we also don't have to judge "current form" based upon 45-50 minutes. We don't often consider an article needing to be at peak within its first hour. However I have not added a Keep vote yet so I am not saying either is correct yet. That is all. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did thorough research in an attempt to find reliable sources for this movie. I found the same links you did and recognized that they either were unreliable or did not constitute significant coverage, but I failed to foresee that someone would characterize them as indications of notability.
- Didn't say they were enough. Simply pointing out info found within 3 first clicks combined with the short time in existence of the article before being nominated. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should have been clearer—movie reviews from reliable sources. The four reviews from Common Sense Media are from users including parents and an 11-year-old kid. This source is definitely not reliable and thus does not establish notability.
- Delete, doesn't look notable at all RomeEonBmbo (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This has no references and doesn't appear at all notable. It has not been written in the style of the encyclopaedia. I think it is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability RDN1F (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:NF. When addressable through normal editing,[1] article format and style are never a valid reason for deletion. I note that this effort by an inexperienced new editor[2] lasted six minutes before being flagged for its multiple issues,[3] and another 34 minutes before being nominated for deletion.[4] Though it might appear as hurried to some, the templates and AFD were decent calls. This said, I made a special point to drop a note on the newcomer's talk page urging them to read WP:PRIMER before attempting another article. If they return to Wikiedia, their next efforts might fare better than did this one. And to User:Pudge MclameO, I share your concerns that this may have seemed hurried, but after having myself done searches and making edits to at least improve the article's appearance, I have to agree that this one, fresh ink or no, does not have what it takes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:03, 30 August 2011 (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.