Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R3tual

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 - no sources available, only press releases & producer's website. Fails WP:MOVIE. KrakatoaKatie 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R3tual

R3tual (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable film with only 31 Google hits, many, many of them from PR websites. Created by User:Cinemapress, who has a conflict of interest - http://cinemapress.biz/id36.htm - and may be Leon King, himself. The same user created this article back in August and it was speedy deleted then. R3tual has no entry at ImdB, and the link to Ben Staley at imdb doesn't mention this film. Corvus cornix 21:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is agreed that the August submission was blatant. However, this latest submission shows that user has been learning proper technique and style and has greater care to be informative and helpful about a new genre of film. Festival submission updates are forthcoming. SynnManagement 01:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not Cinempress... though I submit reviews to them as well as to a few dozen other online venues... and have been doing so since 1998. My opinions are my own and no one else's and I was gratified that they chose to use use my review of r3tual in their Wiki posting, and sorry that it was deleted... since I have seen the film several times and found it remarkable. R3tual has been submitted to several film festivals this year and will likely be on IMDB before Christmas. I do hope that Wikipedia will not choose to censor a submission sinply because it does not have massive google hits. I have found that their are thousands of delightful films being share in the underculture that will likely never have wide distribution or have their names plastered across the media. Is not having the resources for a multimedia promotional blitz a crime? I feel this article does serve the public good. IMHO. L.L.King 06:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion as to whether a film does or does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements has nothing to do with censorship, and your accusation is not appreciated. One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability. If you cannot provide reliable sources which discuss this film, then, no, it does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, and must be deleted. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Corvus cornix 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We feel that due to the fact that any 1 Wiki editor questions informations inre our submission of the article about the film R3TUAL, and despite of the fact that 2 other persons have defended its inclusion (thank you), clarity will be best served if the article was deleted (without prejudice) until such time as we can ourselves submit additional informations to prove its existance, such as viewings at festivals or inclusion in IMDB. I do point out that the film does exist, and verifications and trailers and filmclips are available on the filmmaker's home pages and myspace pages (acceptable for IMDB) but that these links that proved its existance were themselves deleted by user "Hersfold", thus ensuring that evidences of the film's existance were no longer available.... a certain poignant Catch 22, as it were. We were not aware that Myspace was anathema to Wiki. But we do understand and accept that more informations from more sources other than the filmmaker himself on their website or Myspace or the dozen press releases will be needed to assist a future submnission of the article. What is the procedure? Shall we delete it ourselves, or shall someone else do it? Cinemapress 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely the article can be improved without removing it entirely? I tracked down the mementioned studios where it was seen and contacted them via email. I am told that the piece was very well received and promises to be making the circuit for years as a surreal favorite. It is understood that as an art film, it would have been rare for it to have the wide financial backing that allows mainstream blockbuster films to get press all over the world, nor would it have gotten the wide release of strongly financed films. But, from my limited research, R3tual seems well representative of "auteur" films, independent films, and experimental films of similat genre. Wiki's own definitions of art films, would seem to indicate that AS a film, R3tual is unlikely to become notable or famous, but verifications of its existance do (did) exist and should likely not have been removed. And though an IMDB profile would go far to further prove this film's existance, getting an art film listed on IMDB is likely even more difficult as geting it on Wiki. SynnManagement 19:40, 15 October 2007 (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.