Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Payne: Payne & Redemption

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 of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max Payne: Payne & Redemption

I am quite puzzled by this extraordinary level of uptightness from what I USED to regard as an easy-going, well run online resource. This small page can hardly be doing any damage to the massive, global servers of the almighty Wikipedia. Since its inception, the page has generated a lot of interest from fans of Max Payne and is a useful source of publicity for the film, so I am genuinely disappointed that it has been "nominated for deletion" - I mean, how anally-retentive can a website be that they would deny a small, independent film (which will be available in the US!) the tremendous benefits of a mere page on this resource. So go ahead, you sad, petty, arrogant, self-righteous, stuck-up faggots - delete the page - prove to the world once again that you can 'stick it to the little guy', that there is no help out there for up-and-coming film makers, for independent films. Well done, you've won and I hope it feels great - now go home and boil some babies or something. Oh, and seeing as you're supposed to be an encyclopaedia, you should appreciate the need for correct grammar - "and 131 Google results, coupled with being rejected 5 times from IMDb don't really help the case" - "doesn't really help the case.", thank you very much.

Wikipedia does not exist for the purposes of being "a useful source of publicity" for anything. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you're wrong about your grammatical correction: since "131 google results" is a plural noun phrase, it is properly conjugated with "do", not "does". --Saforrest 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Unless "131 Google results" is understood to mean "the fact of '131 Google results'"; I don't imagine that's the intended meaning, though... Joe 06:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, kids, this is what we who follow internet phenomena call an "YOU ALL SUCK KTHNXBYE" post. According to some historians - research is still ongoing - it was conjectured to be first used by some annoyed college student in 1980s in the Usenet and everyone just laughed at it then. It has since shown no increase in net effect, in fact, it still fails to register as any kind of criticism that would cause any real effect on Internet communities. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'm a huge fan of Max Payne, and this movie looks good, we unfortunately cannot have movies on Wikipedia that do not pass our notability standards, and 131 Google results, coupled with being rejected 5 times from IMDb don't really help the case. When the movie is released and is more than speculative (in addition to being notable), then the article may be re-written, provided it passes the Wikipedia guidelines. Until then, this article is not permitted to be on Wikipedia Mysekurity [m!] 14:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Comment on the page deletion by James Hampstine :

Personaly, as a Fan of the Max Payne universe I am exited at the prospect of it being brought to life in this indipendant movie. I think its a shame to delete the page. You talk about notability. Well this is the first serios independant film based in the Max Payne universe. And since Max Payne has quite a large following around the world I think that is a pretty notable thing. As well as having people who are working on the film who are already featured on the IMDB database like Justin R. Durban & Michael Johns.I beleive the director was using a certain amount of sarcasm in his blog post on the P&R site concirning the number of times the film was submitted to IMDB. Indeed the IMDB rules state that for an independant movie it has to be finished or for there to be good proof that it will be finished before they will allow it onto the database.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.164.232 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 April 2006


Comment on the page deletion by James Hampstine : Third party sources. OK How about on Both of Justin R. Durban's websites Here: http://www.justindurban.com/credits.html and Here: http://www.edgen.com/music/projects.html . Justin R. Durban is a well known and respected score composer and is not going to attach himself and his name to somthing that isn't going to happen.

An interview with the director Here: http://www.paynereactor.com/articles/view_12/page_1/

Not to mention all the sites around the internet where this film is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.164.232 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 April 2006

Hey there, James! Note that I've got nothing against this movie (save for the fact that it won't be out in the States -_- ), but in order to keep Wikipedia from being overrun with descriptions of non-notable Star Wars and Star Trek fan films, Geocities sites or other things that haven't had a big impact on culture aren't really allowed here. What Saberwyn was talking about was that a reliable source would be the Chicago Sun or some other paper, or a seriously notable website like Aint It Cool News, and not someone's blog or a small-time (albeit useful) site like Paynereactor.com. This isn't in offense to you, and once the movie comes out and it has an IMDb page and all that good stuff, the article may be re-created. As an administrator, I have the ability to view deleted pages, and would be more than willing to help you re-write this. Good luck with the shooting, Mysekurity [m!] 23:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. When you post something to a talk page, make sure to sign it by using 4 tildes (~~~~). Also, I invite you to create an account, and stay for a little while.
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This unreleased movie is not notable or important yet. In present form it does not meet the verifiability policy, as the only cited references are to the movie's own website and a forum, neither of which meets the reliable source guidelines. When something about it has been published in mainstream newspaper, film magazine, or a place that meets the reliable source guidelines, we can have an article about it; not before. Presently, it is not even listed at imdb. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on this page deletion by Cap Lorien.

The producers of this movie have already done a lot of work and I'm convinced it's going to eventually be released. As such, it belongs here like other such movies. The whole point of this site is to provide information and this is valid information. Please don't delete it.


Comment on this page deletion by Luke Morgan-Rowe, Executive Producer of Max Payne: Payne & Redemption.

OK, I now have a compelling reason, as well as my well justified moral ones, why this site should not be removed. Two seperate French websites, discovered whilst scrolling through our mere 131 google results, confuse our independent film with being the official Max Payne one - a level to which we do not wish to be lowered. We need a page on a well exposed, well respected site (or even online information resource, such as an encyclopaedia), as well as our website, to provide the general public with information about our film, so as not to create irritation and potentially serious confusion, such as the one suffered by our Gallic friends. Now I wonder where we could put a page like that?...

  • Unfortunately, Mr. Morgan-Rowe, a section of one of Wikipedia's main policies states that Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider. Combined with the criteria listed in several other policies and guidelines, including other sections of the What Wikipedia is not policy and the verifiability policy to name a few, material such as this movie should not be included here until it can be verified through the use of external, third-party sources, such as articles in newspapers or gaming/movie magazines. If such information from such sources can be provided, now or at a point in the future, I will be more than happy to stand by its inclusion, but at this point in time, I'm going to have to disagree with its inclusion. -- Saberwyn 02:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
While there is probably a consensus above, there is a lot of talk and not a lot of clearly defined votes (and one of those that is clearly defined is an anon). For this reason I am relisting this on today's afd page to gather greater input. If people could be clear and succinct when commenting this will help the closing admin greatly! Thryduulf 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Saberwyn and Dpbsmith. --Saforrest 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT an advertising hoarding, a free host, an indiscriminate collection of information, a crystal ball; per WP:V from WP:RS, per WP:NPOV (which we can't assess due to the previous two) and because, well, we just don't have this kind of stuff. Just zis Guy you know? 22:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: the fact that IMDb won't touch this speaks volumes to this subject's verifiability and notability. --Hetar 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a biiiiiiig Max Payne fan, but this is an indie movie that can't get itself on IMDb, has no "names" attached to it, and has not been released yet (echoing WP not being a crystal ball). While an indie Max Payne movie could be cool (An aside: does Remedy Entertainment know about it? They might have something to say, especially considering an big-studio Max Payne film is in the works.), it does not deserve a place on Wikipedia... yet. This amazing site should not be used merely for advertising purposes, and in addition, the author of the article writing a rambling, offensive rant does not do much to help his cause. -- Kicking222 23:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • (As another aside: Well, Remedy is actually unlikely to care, since they don't own the franchise anymore -- they sold it to Take Two a couple of years back... -- Captain Disdain 00:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete Unreleased, practically unknown movie with no distribution. It's not Wikipedia's mission to help publicize it. Fan1967 02:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's not actually a movie, it's one installment out of six, but more importantly the article does not establish notability nor that any substantial production work has occurred. Even Terminator 4 didn't rate its own article. Peter Grey 04:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per a number of points in WP:NOT--blue520 07:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - yeah, yet another such note from a fan of Max Payne - per crystalballistic fanfilmatious existence. I won't step this up to strong delete for that "You All Suck" rant up there, now matter how tempted I am. This said, I don't mind seeing a short mention of the thing in an appropriate Max Payne article. After all, game articles (in my opinion) can have brief information on upcoming, as-of-yet unreleased mods that are far along their way, while (I think) making full articles on the aforementioned mods may be pretty ridiculous unless they're actually released. A fan movie is in this regard no different from a game mod. So I suggest condensing this thing to a mention in an article, and welcome back with a full article when the thing is actually released in any viable scale. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm with wwwwolf. I would also like to add that once the movie's actually out, it may very well become a phenomenon that justifies its inclusion in Wikipedia -- it wouldn't be the first one. As it is, this is an article about a project that may or may not ever actually realize itself. Is the movie even going to be released? It may be, and I wish the best for the creators, but it's also possible that it never actually gets finished. We don't know, and we can't know, but we certainly know that if every single announced independent fan film project out there was actually made, there'd be a lot more fan films out there than there are right now. We are a not a crystal ball or an advertising platform. (Also, this is beside the point, but being called a sad, petty, arrogant, self-righteous, stuck-up faggot doesn't exactly make me full of sympathy. I only hope that the guy who wrote that rant isn't actually involved in the production of the movie itself. I like independent movies on principle, but I kind of have a problem with jackasses.) -- Captain Disdain 00:50, 23 April 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.