Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towne Films

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. W.marsh 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towne Films[edit]

Towne Films (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This appears to be a advertising and possible WP:VAIN. Google hits for "Towne Films" garners 42 unique hits, most of which have nothing to do with this subject. This article and Legiones Redde, a non-notable fan film also up for AfD, were created by the same editor. IrishGuy talk 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advertisement, as a fan of this organization, I have nothing to gain about this. I don't even know these people, I just love their work and it deserves to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

On what basis does it deserve to have an article? How do they meet any criteria for inclusion? IrishGuy talk 22:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How then does any organization meet the criteria for inclusion? As a fan of the organization they already have a fanbase which makes them worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

Having a fan base isn't a criteria for inclusion. Many things have fan bases. How does this meet WP:WEB, film notability, or even WP:CORP? IrishGuy talk 22:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No real notability asserted, no real notability to be found. -- Kicking222 22:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

it was in fanfilms.net, i submitted it there — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't meet the criteria. Submitting your own film hardly makes it independent. Additionally, a site which accepts all submissions isn't a notable independent distributor. IrishGuy talk 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as an article about a group of people, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Fails WP:WEB, WP:BIO and whatever else you want to throw at it. Wikipedia is not a web host or advertising service. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its not my film its their film, and fanfilms.net does not accept every film, because I've submitted lots of other films before which were denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaraJade85 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 November 2006

According to this conflict of interest bit it says that I have to know the people personally. I've only seen these people online and read stuff on their website, I've never known them other than that. As a fan, I'm writing an article about it, just as say a Star Trek fan would write an article on Star Trek, or an Atomic Pink fan an article on Atomic Pink

  • Comment Most Atomic Kitten fans are not responsible for the pressing and distribution of their CDs. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pressing anything or ditributing anything, just writing an article about the group. And that's Atomic Pink, the girls rock band, not Atomic kittens whoever they are

  • Comment 1. You have failed to understand my analogy. You are, by your own admission, distributing this group's content. 2. We are now in danger of violating WP:POINT. 3. Again, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did I distribute the group's content? Obviously then we may as well delete the Chad Vader article since I contributed a lot to that.MaraJade85 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to amass others to disrupt Wikipedia as you did on the forums. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 23:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1. Quote: "it was in fanfilms.net, i submitted it there" 2. For the third time, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). 3. We are now violating both WP:POINT and my patience. This will be my last contribution to this discussion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and above. Subject is just not notable. - Tutmosis 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I don't know if it was any of you, but I won't pay any attention to any rascists here. Since someone wrote a comment on the forum. Now perhaps the other person I would agree with to a certain point regarding the film that it may not belong with MGM, but this isn't just about degrading or upgrading, this is about whether someone can write an article about an organization piece of art that one is a fan of. Now obviously if this organization were made by my boyfriend, I would have no business making an article about it. However, if a 3rd party wrote it, that's the difference. I think some of you are concerned that because I am a fan of the franchise, I have conflict of interest, but then if not a fan, who can write an article? Most articles here were written by fans of their subject matter. The film was approved to be on fanfilms.net, and has been shown for educational purposes in high schools, therefore it is notable imao, however, since the film organization does not have any articles other than its listing in fanfilms.net, then I would consent to this article's deletion, though not to the others which have been around for a long time, and only today, after I decided to go ahead and do one for the organization as well, is this debate coming up.MaraJade85 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So where do we set the line between what people can write about and what they can't Wikipedia has reams of pages about guidelines of what's suitable to be included, and what's not. (This isn't.) Try reading some of them. Especially WP:NOT: a blog, a fanzine, a MySpace page, or a publicity venue. Lots of college kids do films, the vast majority aren't notable. Lots of videos and films get shown in high schools, few are notable. Try looking at it from a wider standpoint: Are people in , say, New Zealand or Nunavut going to go to Wikipedia to look up information on this film, because it's notable , or are you sticking an article in, hoping the same people run across it and develop an interest? Sorry, Two opposable thumbs down. Tubezone 09:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was someone on the Towne Films forums who was from Australia who looked up info on the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.247.152 (talk • contribs)

The entire forum has 19 members. While there may have been someone from outside the local community who showed interest in the film, the lack of membership shows that this isn't a widespread fanbase. IrishGuy talk 17:59, 12 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Towne_Films&oldid=1136107310"