Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Polish: Master Hubbard's Special Reserve

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Polish: Master Hubbard's Special Reserve

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

Article is about a non-notable Z-budget film that does not even appear to have been reviewed or gained any notice whatsoever. Laval (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. It exists. It screened. It won an award at a festival. But apart from that no media sources have taken notice of this comedy short. All I can find are viewer responses and numerous non-rs.[1] and nothing in any rs.[2] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urm. Do reviews count? If yes, then there appear to be quite a number of reviews, from pages like TV.com, which should be reliable. To win an award should ba a big deal too. Then, there is also an amazon page about it. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having an Amazon page doesn't give automatic notability. It just means that it's available for sale, or was at some point in time. (Plus it's a merchant site, which means that anything they post on there is suspect because it's in their best interests to make it look like something you absolutely must buy.) Also, reviews by Tv.com probably wouldn't satisfy notability guidelines since anyone can sign up and review. I looked on the site, but was unable to find any reviews for this film on TV.com. As far as awards go... it depends. Not all awards hold equal weight here on Wikipedia and most awards aren't notable enough to keep an article by that merit alone. Normally the awards have to be the equivalent of an Oscar, Razzie, or place at a notable film festival to keep an article on that aspect alone. I always say that 99.9% of awards do not fit this qualification of Wikipedia. I'll see what I can find, but I just wanted to clarify on this part.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd say to redirect it to the director's page but he seems to be suffering from some serious notability issues himself. A search brought up zero coverage in reliable sources. There are reviews, but all by non-notable John and Jane Average-People, which cannot count towards notability. The awards don't seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia's standards, as there were no sources actually reporting on the awards other than this Wikipedia page and various merchant or primary sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2012 (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.