Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rael's Racewalker

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 of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rael's Racewalker[edit]

Delete - Non-notable documentary, possible advertisement and vanity page. Google search brings up only *38* returns. MikeWazowski 03:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, advertisement, and vanity --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability for this film; likely adspam based on the AfD for Acropolis Films, LLC. Remove link from Race walking as well. And it's definitely not as important to the domain of race walking as "50K Racewalk by Videlectrix. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete, the pure idea of deleting this entry is the very definition of censorship; that which is in direct opposition to what any encyclopedia stands for. This is not only a film, which is what the WikiProject Films is dedicated to; it's a documentary. Its very nature is to present actual events of human endeavor. Photoactivist 22:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. We'll be happy to include your documentary as soon as theaters start showing it, people watch it, or someone drags you to court over it. As it is now, no ones heard of it. -M^ask 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, as a comment, there's a difference between censorship and standards - this is a case of the latter. No one's denying that the film exists, or trying to suppress the film itself. However, right now, this film has almost zero internet presence. It's a non-entity as far as films go, for now. If the film gets distributed or shown at festivals, even listed on the IMDB, then those are signs that there's some legitimate interest in the film, and then its inclusion in the Wikipedia can be revisited. But right now, it looks like the filmmakers are tring to game the system to generate false search hits and returns on their project, and that's NOT what I think the Wikipedia should be supporting. TheRealFennShysa 22:58, 28 March 2006 (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.