Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sender (1998)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sender (1998)[edit]

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

Contested prod. The only reference about this movie is IMDB, and I was unable to find more. It appears that even with Michael Madsen and Dyan Cannon as part of the cast this movie never managed to achieve any notoriety. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is being currently sold in stores where people can buy and watch it, and want to know more about it. Broad-based appeal is not the only criteria for desirable knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjennmom (talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence alone does not justify inclusion in Wikipedia. You have to show that the movie meets our notability guidelines for films. If it doesn't, then anyone who wants to know more about the movie after seeing it in stores can check IMDB. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere release of a film to the public, without coverage in independent, reliable sources, does not justify an article. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snobbishness on how worthy a film may be for inclusion is unbecoming. The page/article would not have been created without someone searching for it. Wikipedia was not created as an exclusive club for only the top-rated A-list subjects.
- It's a difficult line to walk, for sure, but some requirements (and not just for films) exist out of necessity; Wikipedia isn't intended to cover everything in all of existence. If it were, you and I would have our own articles as well. If there's disagreement with the guidelines, there are avenues of discussion to try and address those concerns, like the Village Pump (which may not be the best for this sort of discussion, perhaps someone else could better give guidance on this). Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a search for the title alone returns retrieves more results for a film of the same name from the 1980's, and with the year, returns generally more results for Michael Madsen than the film itself, when torrents/downloads are ruled out. No reviews from reliable sources exist for the film. Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason for people to be able to know and understand there are differences. Heck, for that matter there are 3 different films with the same title on Wikipedia that were made within a 9 year span - I'm sure one of them shows up a LOT more in search results than the others and yet they each have their own space here. Like I said - you're not trying to take it down as unnecessary, but because you're film snobs.
- I believe what you're trying to do here is change the existing guidelines on the notability of films. If you want "film snobs" to be unable to declare a film unnotable solely on the grounds that this film has never been the subject of substantial reliable coverage (even the Rotten Tomatoes entry, which you inserted, states that it was unable to find any material about the movie), then the right place to propose a change of guidelines is Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). But here, the decision on whether or not to keep the article shall be based on existing guidelines and policies. See Wikipedia:Notability (films) to learn what to expect from us film snobs. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 11 September 2010 (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.