Talk:Behind the Mask (ALF)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Behind the Mask (ALF) is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Why was the notability tag removed. I hadn't thought about notability until Weregerbil put it on, but after they did I tried to find some info on this film and had trouble finding any notable sources. It doesn't show up on IMDb or on blockbuster.com's dvd listings. The full title of the movie in quotes only turns up 4 hits. Can someone show how this film is notable. I think it should be mentioned in the ALF page, but I'm not sure it deserves it's own article. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 20:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't already, please se AfD discussions for Shannon Keith and Uncaged Films. I think all three pages are problematic. The creator now suggest that Uncaged Films can redirect to Behind the Mask (ALF) (since it is the company's only film so far) but the question still is whether the film is notable. It seems to fail WP:NOTFILM and the external sources look pretty self-refering. Medico80 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It was me who made that suggestion [1] and I am not the creator of any of these articles. This is the second time I've had to ask you to get your facts about these pages. Please read articles, posts, and edit histories more carefully. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reached this article by reading articles about radical animal right groups, which include AFL. There appear to be lot of soapboxing going on. It's not the first time that wikipedia is used as a platform for promotion. I propose this article for deletion. If anyone disagree, please demonstrate that this film satisfy Wikipedia threshold of inclusion. Vapour

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)