Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project (2006)

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. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Long Island Project (2006)

How do we put deletion bait on Wikipedia? Let us count the ways:vanity, promotional, non-notability (no Google hits for this) and what can you put forth? Daniel Case 05:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Google the filmmaker Eric Norcross and you will see some fan sites as well as listings on various other sites like famouspeople.com I object to this decision whole-heartedly. Please dispute with me through my talk section before taking action.

-Katherine Johnson

This isn't a decision, this is a proposal. And we will "dispute" it here, not on your talk page (which I won't be able to find if you don't sign your posts), because that's what this forum is for.

In any event, filmmakers considered notable enough for Wikipedia do not automatically make notable movies. If I didn't find anything about the movie on Google, it does not get to acquire notability by having a Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 06:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that your God? Let's say (hypothetically now) that someone somewhere wants to know more about this man or his films--where are they going to go? One of those measly fan sites that have absolutely very little or even worse: incorrect information about the man and his projects? This is the perfect place for his biography.

No, I'm saying that this is just Wikipedia policy (I know you only started your account two days ago, but it would help to read it before you get caught out here).

I found nothing in the IMdb about the film. Nor for the filmmaker. That's game, set and match on these particular courts. Wikipedia is not the place for you to put up correct information on him if he doesn't meet the notability standard. There are plenty of other places where you could do this, then come back here once the requisite buzz has been created. Daniel Case 06:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fighting this.

You'd be wasting your time. Daniel Case 06:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you're taking my article so personally--this isn't your website.

You have the spunk to accuse me of taking this personally? Look at yourself! I am being cruel only to be kind here ... read the links I posted. Daniel Case 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- not notable. Please see your talk page for the extended version of my rationale. N Shar 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, note that the Articles for Deletion process is designed to get community input. Your views are not being heedlessly dismissed. Also remember that voting here is done by consensus, meaning that a majority is not enough to delete. If the article has merit as it stands, it will remain. N Shar 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete along with Eric Norcross, Sixteen Stories, Hero For A Day, The Balance of the Seventh Column unless they have been covered in the press, picked up by a distributor, or screened outside of film school. Student films are very common and generally do not deserve articles. Rhobite 06:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There's the problem with this website--it's controlled by people who only wish to publish what they believe--remind you of any 24 hour news stations?

One tries hard not to bite the newcomers. But that presumes they don't bite, either. Daniel Case 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

WHAT HAS HAPPENED ON THIS WEBSITE IS JUST ANOTHER FORM OF FLAMING--THOSE WHO ARE NEW. I AM LEAVING THIS WEBSITE FOR GOOD AND ALL as I know now that there is no hope for this place. This is worse than any message board I've been too--because you're controlling information. You talk about credibility and trying to maintain it--I think it's just your excuse. Forget that--your thugs and nothing more.

Good day!

OK, if that's how you want to play it ... Daniel Case 06:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Katherine, how are we supposed to write a useful encyclopedia if we don't have a set of standards that govern what we will allow ourselves to publish? How are we supposed to verify that your submissions are accurate, for example, if this movie has never been covered in the press? I hope you'll read Wikipedia:Verifiability and understand why we have these debates. I assure you that nobody here has anything against you personally - it's just that many, many people try to use Wikipedia to publish announcements, opinionated statements, or unverifiable information. It's nothing personal - these articles just do not meet Wikipedia's standards. Rhobite 06:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and possible Speedy as the article makes no claims of notability, user's ranting on this AfD page notwithstanding. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's remember this user account was opened today and the AfD nomination was acidic. Durova 08:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe this user would have reacted the way she did regardless of how the nomination was phrased. As noted below, she went and vandalized not only my page but the pages of everyone supporting deletion, blanked this, then blanked the warnings she got at her own talk page. In any event, see "Joseph Cipriano" somewhere in the AfD archives for an example of someone who similarly lost it with a nomination that was a lot calmer. Daniel Case 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Let's not bite the newcomers in nomination statements. To the page creator: I understand how much work this project represents. Enter the project in some film festivals and get it into the IMDB. Then you can recreate this listing. Save the article text now so that you can paste it back when you have appropriate references. Best wishes, Durova 06:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: AFAICT this user is not involved in the making of this film. She seems to be just a very devoted fan. Hell hath no fury like a groupie scorned, I guess. I wonder if (based on her comments here) she has some issues with the people who did the other fan sites and this is her way of trying to get back.

Also note the recently created User:Ericnorcross page, with this bit of personal philosophy: I find Wikipedia to be nothing more than an internet web-board, designed to let those around you decide what's true or not. If they don't believe you or cannot provide proof, it must be false. Bullies. It was used for some of the attempts to remove the AfD notice. I wonder if this is a sockpuppet account, but I'll wait and see. Daniel Case 19:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither of us know this person. Good faith assumes she either worked on the project or is good friends with people who did. I really find your comment "Hell hath no fury like a groupie scorned" and speculation about sock puppets to be inappropriate. This article fails to meet Wikipedia standards. I hope it does become encyclopedic after a few months on the festival circuit. There's no need to mock the editor. Durova 20:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked the one site which is devoted to the film and promoting it. Given the relatively minuscule budgets of most independent films, if she were involved in any way she'd be credited there. Googling on her name plus his produces nothing that would suggest her involvement with him in any professional way.

Yes, it would be nice for him (at least) if this did one day rate an article. However, it's not now, and there is no prejudice against recreation, though I think it would be better if it was by someone who took the time to understand how things are done here before they went and posted. Daniel Case 06:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable and non-notable, and also delete the others listed by Rhobite. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 07:12Z
• Comment This AfD vote was blanked by Katherinejohnson and the AfD notice for the article was removed twice by the same user. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Do not delete the other articles until and unless they become AfD. Crunch 13:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Update: as I noted above, katherinejohnson, in a fit of spite, also went and vandalized my user page, N Shar's and Rhobite's, then blanked her own talk page to remove evidence of prior warnings. As I said under "Joseph Cipriano," this behavior should weigh against any impulse to keep. Daniel Case 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per ridiculous comments in this AFD (and because content is utterly non-notable.) Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sheesh. Delete — on the basis of current lack of notability of the subject matter; not because of inflammatory comments in this AfD discussion. The page can always be created again if the subject matter becomes notable in the future. :) — RJH 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my say to Strong Delete after the ridiculous way in which the contributor of the article has conducted herself. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 17:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:No original research . Also, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Hurricane111 18:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for several violations of WP:ISNOT. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete There is some kind of law about the degree to which desperate intervention is related to lack of notability. to wit: nn, nn, nn, nn, nn. Eusebeus 23:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nomination. A word of caution: in the true Wikipedia spirit, voters/commenters should try to judge the merits of the article itself in the light of the rules (see WP:RULES). Please do not allow yourself to be influenced by anyone's behavior. That is not the issue here. AvB ÷ talk 00:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

After walking away from my computer and going into Manhattan to work and think--and try to rationalize this system--I still think you all should keep it--perhaps tighten up the article if you want to--but please don't delete it.

Katherinejohnson 07:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. With pointless but effective qualifier strong. -- Krash 14:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3470049062124237041&q=Long+Island+Project Please visit this website and re-consider. Thank you. Katherinejohnson 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as very much non-notable. I also endorse what Avb says. Stifle 18:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

--As a native New Yorker I can assure you this film exists and it is quite popular--and steadily gaining. If you want to prove your experiment to be a success--do not vote it out. I've been monitoring this for the last two days and have found just as much negativity from the experienced Wikipedians as from the author herself. All she did was write an honest article.-- —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.161.23.201 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 January 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.