Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Group Films (second nomination)

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 and protect from recreation. This was deleted four times before, and this will be the fifth time. The anons do not bring any evidence of notability to the table. --Coredesat 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Group Films

Spanish Group Films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

This article keeps getting recreated. I nominated it previously for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Group Films) and it was early closed with a speedy delete. It was recreated and eventually protected, but then the protection page was deleted, and now it's been recreated again. Let's settle this by giving it the full AfD run. It is a borderline hoax, as the "company" appears to be nothing more than a few high school kids. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and salt per nom. May be eligible for speedy deletion as a repost. MER-C 04:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt per CSD A7 and possibly CSD G4.--TBCΦtalk? 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, it's pathetic if one of their own 'claims to fame' is that they claim on their website the day they put up their own Wikipedia article![1]SkierRMH 09:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Their website points at the usual ignorance of WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:OWN and Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. IslaySolomon | talk 10:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for visiting the site. Obviously you liked it, and hopefully you watched some of the movies. That is the updates page, and is not a "claim to fame." It is simply a place for our fans to see what is new with the site. Oh, and I think it's pathetic when an adult man edits and deletes wikipedia articles. Especially if the group is working their way up, because you clearly don't know what that's like. So instead of going out and being with people, you edit an encyclopedia. Score! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment 1. On what basis do you assume that I am an "adult man"? 2. You have also been editing an encyclopaedia. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment OK, I regret saying that. However, my initial points on the article remain true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete, advert, WP:COI, and please protect it. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Read WP:COI again. That describes promoting products. Sorry, we don't have any products to sell, so how can that be true? Also, it describes personal pages. We don't have any of those either. I don't understand you people. I say the same to you as I did to SkierRMH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a hoax in any way. This is simply noticing a WORTHY group, as they have put much energy and work into these projects. If what you are saying below is true, then you are discriminating articles by the age of the writer. Check IP adresses for visits to the site. There are many visits to the site from different places. How come this is not a valid article? What could make this company recieve "accreditation" from your super educated administrators so that this group can be realized? I guess I can understand how this could be a way for you people to make up for the fact that none of you have ever done something notable in your life, but lets be reasonable. Why don't you delete the 20th Century Fox article? Because it's a corporation and makes millions? Or because they have made hundreds of films? Isn't that unfair descrimination? If this article is continually recreated, what does that tell you about the will of this group and how important it is to others around it? You should understand that this was not thought up in one school day, nor is it a joke. It is a legitamate company on the rise, but all you see is amateur filmmaking, and that is what you base it on. By continually deleting this article, you are smashing the dreams of the founders of the company, and are disappointing everyone in the town of Somers, CT. And you should realize that you can continually delete the article, but the it is always going to be recreated. Because that is how important this group is to people that have dreams, something you should learn from as you sit on your couch and laugh at other people's work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Spanish Group Films. It seems to have lasted a long enough time on wikipedia anyway. You would save your sorry selves time and energy blocking all the people that add refrences to the group, and deleting all the articles that are made about the group. Think about it. It's completely understandable that a group wants to get proper recognition. And the site is in no way advertising. It is giving the facts about the founders and controllers of the company, which is wrong how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justfor52 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• It said wikipedia as "the free encyclopedia". Guess not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Free, as in you don't pay to read it. It still has integrity regarding the quality/notability of articles. →Bobby← 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - What encyclopedia do YOU pay for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Encyclopedia Britannica? Anyway, I can appreciate the work and effort (a few friends of mine have their own production team), but neither are an argument for keeping this article. Once you start showing at cannes, then we'll talk. Delete. --humblefool® 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Google search on "Spanish Group Films" brings back only 15 unique hits on 41 entries. Removing Wikipedia related entries leaves only 8 unique returns. Textbook non-notable. TheRealFennShysa 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the author's self-admitted promotion ("It's completely understandable that a group wants to get proper recognition"), the complete lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, and the hilarious conspiracy accusation that the Fox Broadcasting Company article is not being deleted because they are multi-million dollar corporation. Wavy G 04:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's true though, is it not? What makes the Fox company more deserving of an article in an encyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment The fact that information about the Fox company meets WP:V standards. Please familiarize yourself with that policy as it is the heart of the matter here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Retain because this is nothing more than a discrimination against the size of the company. Spanish Group Films is an important part of people's lives and just because of who created it and how large the company is, it is "unimportant" to the people who edit this site. What's the difference between this group and a group who does have an article on this site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.10.100.204 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 November 2006.
  • Comment The latter meets our notability criteria. Do not add votes to others comments as you did here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact still remains that this is still a discrimination against the size of the project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment So what if it was made up by a couple school kids? Does that make it any less real? Does it make it any less credible? And it is certainly not a hoax, as the company has clearly put up several movies and has a significant fan base. What about that is a hoax? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment Call this whatever you'd like, but as long as a topic fails WP:V it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Period. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment So what you are basing this entire argument on is the fact that Spanish Group Fims is not online through a valid source. Which means that the only way a topic can be included into Wikipedia is to have it be online. So what you are implying is that everything worth mentioning can be found online, which you know as well as I do, is certainly not true. If public popularity and mainstream is a necessity of topics, then mention that somewhere in your fance guideline articles. But there are things out there that don't need to be writen about online for them to be important or worthy of mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.25.80 (talk • contribs) 15 November 2006 (UTC).
      • Comment No. All our articles must contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Those reliable sources need not be on-line, however we must still cite them. If we were to investigate a topic ourselves first-hand and write up what we had found, that would be original research. We must therefore rely on the information gathered about a topic by reliable sources. This allows us to verify the information in an article by citing those reliable sources. If no reliable sources have written about a topic, as is the case here, then that topic is not notable enough to deserve an article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Just to help clarify further, look at Note 44 in today's featured article J. R. R. Tolkien. This is an example of a reliable source that is not online and that has been correctly cited in an article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Spanish Group Films. In response to the above comments, I would like to add, what is needed for a topic to be "worthy of mention"? What I understand from reading the above comments is that Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia for topics that are important, but rather for the topics that get the most promotions. This is not how the system should be based, and I am sure that Spanish Group Films is not the only one who has pleaded this case. However, I would also like to ask how much of a limit is put on Wikipedia? Is there a limit to the amount of articles that can be put on? I understand where your administrative views are coming, but I also believe that an encyclopedia presents to you facts on whatever you would like to know about, and I know of many people who would like very much to kow about Spanish Group Films. Isn't that a reliable enough source? 72.10.100.204 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nope, it's not. Again, anon(s), I must emphasize that you really ought to familiarize yourselves with our policies and guidelines. Just take the time to read them and you'll understand the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Here, I'll even list the important ones that apply here:

  WP:V (Verifiability policy)

  WP:RS (Reliable sources guidelines)

  WP:OR(Original research policy)

  WP:N (Notability guidelines)

  --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Guys, I'm really sorry, but there's only so much advice we can give you. Please take your time to read and re-read the policies AbsolutDan has directed you to above. They explain things fair better than we can, that's what they're there for. The one last thing I can suggest you do is to take a look at some of the featured articles. Pay particular attention to the "references" or "footnotes" section. These cite sources such as books, scientific journals, respected current affairs websites and newspaper and magazine articles. There is no way that any of these will have covered your home movies. Finally, yes, there is a limit to the amount of information that can be stored on Wikipedia. Wikipedia exists on very real computer servers, that are paid for by real money. Donors do not give money to the Wikimedia foundation to help kids promote their youtube videos. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC
  • SGF is a very real and very important production company. You may not understand it, but its there and its truth, and it will eventually gain enough recognition to meet your criteria, because it is that important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.10.100.204 (talk • contribs) .

Comment - How, exactly, are they important? What awards have they won? What accolades have they received? What press coverage have they gained? What social wrongs have they corrected? What side is their toast buttered on? If all we have to go on is some anonymous IP (especially one that just vandalized another article) posting that the group is important just because (and only because) they say so, you're not going to survive this AfD. TheRealFennShysa 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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.