Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybornetics

Add links
From 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. Puppetry aside, this one almost met WP:NF. If an editor wishes it userfied to them for possible improvements, they need only ask and show me the additional sources that meet WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cybornetics[edit]

Cybornetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could find no sources that subject meets WP:MOVIE. Only brief, promo-like, references provided (the ones that are working). No critic reviews. [1] Coverage on the Internet seems to be limited to catalog-like listings. NeilN talk to me 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film is independently distributed all over the world by itself and doesn't need any. User:MovieMoguls 19:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existence does not automatically confer notability. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher engages in direct-sales to buyers (which they are being systematically punished for) and does not need the standard Hollywood distribution system, does that mean it should not be noted, should we provide receipts that the product is selling worldwide.User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Again, selling something does not establish notability. Selling your hand-knitted socks over the Internet does not mean your socks are notable. --NeilN talk to me 19:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The film was theatrically released in various theaters around the world, and released internationally on various platforms such as VOD & DVD and also has a soundtrack on CD, there is also lots of information on the internet, as well as bus & subway billboards & advertisements. Your knit-socks analogy is false. User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Please provide links to the "lots of information" which appears in independent third party sources and is not based off press releases. --NeilN talk to me 19:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a private website and you have no unfettered rights here. You are welcome to write and improve articles in compliance with our policies and guidelines but not otherwise. The burden is on you to show convincingly that this film meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for films, and you have not yet done so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I asked for "lots of information which appears in independent third party sources". Two sentences by an involved source doesn't cut it. Secondly, nothing has a "right" to an article on Wikipedia. Finally, I've removed your "keep" label - you only get one !vote in this discussion and you've made that up above. --NeilN talk to me 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Like the nominator, I can only find catalog listings and press releases. Kolbasz (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does meet WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.User:MovieMoguls — Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "notable" person whose article has been deleted six times and is going for a seventh? --NeilN talk to me 21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this person is so unnotable why when you Google, Bing or Yahoo his name there's several hundred pages that come up. The first deletion voted to Keep, so why was there a second deletion in the first place?[[User talk:MovieMoguls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviemoguls (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwayne Buckle resulted in a no consensus (not a keep) which would commonly now lead to a delete for a BLP. And seriously, how hard is it to sign your posts? --NeilN talk to me 21:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "no consensus" in 2007 does not mean it applies to 2015, especially since the subject has released many more works since then. [[User talk:MovieMoguls| — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a notable film by Wikipedia's standards. Rotten Tomatoes says "There are no critic reviews yet for Cybornetics. Keep checking". The Hollywood Reporter has a one sentence summary, almost certainly derived from a press release. My search yielded no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Film is notable for many reasons, but also film meets WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. • Cybornetics (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:NFILM: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." An obscure film by a person of questionable notability does not qualify. And what's your relation to MovieMoguls? You've edited the exact same articles and drafts. --NeilN talk to me 05:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not a sock puppet, I am in no way associated with this film or person in which you are trying to delete from the internet, should I provide my dental records, stop deleting these posts. The Film is notable because it has many references on all 3 major search engines, but also film meets WP:NFILM The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. • Deathtocensorship ([[User talk:Deathtocensorship[|talk]]) 06:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked as a suspected sock of Cybornetics. Mike V • Talk 18:43, 6 January 2015 (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/Cybornetics&oldid=1137750685"