Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nocturne (movie)

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. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nocturne (movie)

Another vanity article for a student film. That the 'official website' cites the creation of this article as 'news' gives it away, really, along with the redlinks. Oh, and the plot also reveals the studentishness: available set (school) + available actors (school kids) = plot (about a school kid in a school). Not in IMDb. Delete as non-notable, and unverifiable. The JPStalk to me 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless information can be found showing this film to be commercially available (ie. not just a student film). Dbertman 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. According to the official web site, this film hasn't even started shooting yet. --Metropolitan90 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn film. --Terence Ong 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • While University Heights (movie) was a close call, this one isn't. Delete. B.Wind 18:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, totally non-notable film. This is much worse than University Heights. Grandmasterka 01:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Original poster makes unverified assumptions of the movies based solely upon the plot. "studentishness". Story is based mainly in a psychologist's office and a unamed, enviroment. If the original poster took time to read the screenplay, he would understand that it is not mostly about 'school', as he put it. Nowhere in any of the text and/or official website does it state the ages of anyone involved, therefor, it is incorrect and unfair to assume the ages of the cast/crew bassed upon a couple of sentances, which were not properly read. Shooting has also begun and completion dates are listed, this would mean the title in question is, "In-production" which is an acceptable state. Needless to say, should the project fall through, the article will be deleted. Distribution in New Zealand has been obtained and can be verified if need be, Australia's distribution will most likely be handled independantly. Movie has been submitted to IMDB and is currently in the process of descision. Article is non-biased and formatted correctly, references to it being non-notable are speculation to the popularity of it. Article exists so anyone can look and discover what the movie is if they hear about it. Article is not designed as the original poster claimed, 'vanity'. Nor is it designed as a student film. For it to be a student film, it would require me to be a student of a highschool, college or university. Seems I am neither of these, how can it be a student film? Because it focuses on high school students? Elephant is also listed in here as dealing with high school students and that isn't a student film. Additionally, link on the home page back to this and the reference to 'red' writing are invalid and pointless comments. They serve no purpose and do not affect the explanation. cchamber 17:42pm, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The "unverified assumptions" were based on the information in your blog, which says you are 16 years old. The JPStalk to me 09:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This mistake has since been fixed while I was looking through to discover the source of your information. I apologise for this confusion. cchamber 20:13pm, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per Nom --Angelstorm 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason why this film should not stay. Redmist1000 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This vote was Redmist1000's first contribution to Wikipedia. The JPStalk to me 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This makes a difference how? So he has wasted less time than you? Big deal. I haven't made an official vote yet, and I don't expect my vote will be counted. Cchamber 12:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: New users votes are generally discounted, especially when their first edits are to a AfD. I'm not sure what you mean about "wasted less time". Avoid making pesonal comments, please. The JPStalk to me 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Excellent Idea, now if we can all deal with personal bias then we are set.... Cchamber 13:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 01:17, 6 June 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.