Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolftime

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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolftime

Contested PROD. Delete as this production company fails WP:CORP. No verifiability from third-party reliable sources; all of three Google hits (merely searching for the title gives mostly irrelevant results) that point solely to this entity's Geocities website. WP:NFT and/or WP:VANITY may also apply per the intimate knowledge that they premiered [their] latest film, Silhouettes, at a Bay Area high school on September 7, 2006. --Kinu t/c 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Also nominated: Silhouettes, the film created by this group. --Kinu t/c 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete The company and film are not "illegitimate", merely non-notable. Seriously, these are films that only a tiny number of people will ever see or even hear of. The fact that a web search doesn't find any of them outside wofltime's geocities page says that pretty much no one has even taken notice of them, and that they, and their awards, are unverifiable. Wikipedia does not exist to help encourage or publicize unknown entrepreneurs, teenage or otherwise. Fan-1967 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment: Respect has nothing to do with it. Verifiability is a policy on Wikipedia, and WP:WEB and WP:CORP are consensus-driven guidelines for inclusion of articles on websites and companies. You are welcome to address the points addressed therein, and then (more imporantly) provide verifiability through reliable sources indicating that the site or company meets one or more of these points, in order to persuade others to recommend keeping this article. --Kinu t/c 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time. Otherise, discussions are extremely hard to follow. The links that have already been posted, WP:WEB and WP:CORP, explain the standards. Your company, website and films do not meet the standards. No press coverage, no public attention, no verifiability, no notability. I'm sorry if you feel that's harsh. Fan-1967 01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and per nom. By the way, the films have been "published in film festivals"? How does that happen? Is that an attempt to make "shown at film festivals" sound like it meets the cited criterion? Hmmm... - W guice 01:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
cuz a free encyclopedia is a good idea, but a free encyclopedia with quality control is an even better one. - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Very much depends on the festival. Sundance, Cannes - yes. Others - assess by situation - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment: Claiming that an article would not harm anybody is an oft-rehashed tactic for retaining articles that do not meet the goals of the project, which is to be an encyclopedia. Verifiability is a policy. You have been provided sufficient information to indicate what these articles need for them to be kept. You have made claims to notability; so source them. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but if these articles cannot meet that core requirement, then they will most certainly be deleted. --Kinu t/c 01:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not just your company. There are thousands of aspiring filmmakers trying to gain some exposure by listing their short films here. Films which may have been screened at a festival or two, but have hardly been reviewed anywhere, written up anywhere, noticed anywhere. Most have received more notice than your films, which seem to have received none at all. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown people or enterprises, but to document those which have already become notable. Fan-1967 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll leave it to the other editors to determine whether it is too much of a stretch to suggest that User:Kevinw91 is the same "Kevin Walker" named in the article. --Kinu t/c 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You've spent enough time trying to do that in the article itself. By the way, someone saying the company or film fails WP:VANITY isn't an ad hominem attack. S/he's not calling you vain, s/he's referring to a policy (that s/he didn't write) which happens to bear that name. What's the argumentative ethics term for being really disingenuous again? - W guice 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)



  • Comment Even if we were to set notability totally aside (which we won't), the #1 ironclad rule here is Verifiability from Reliable Sources. That one's non-negotiable. We have here an article written by you, about your company, and the only source is a website created by you. No other source is available to verify that these films have been shown anywhere. Fan-1967 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)



  • Comment Taking you seriously is not the issue. Wikipedia does not exist to promote unknown ventures. Period. The result of this AfD was never in doubt from the moment it was posted. Continuing this discussion won't change it. Fan-1967 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


  • You're mistaken. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the link to our standard for companies has been repeatedly posted here. You've verified that one of your films was shown. Doesn't make it remotely notable. Nobody in the press wrote it up or commented on it. I'm sorry if our continuing this conversation gave you any impression that there was any chance for the articles. There never was. Fan-1967 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nothing further (such as a link to a encyclopedia policy or notability guideline) can be suggested that has not already been mentioned at least once herein. Whether you choose to take those suggestions or simply ignore them is up to you. I am recusing myself from the remainder of this discussion. Best of luck in the future. --Kinu t/c 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No we won't. I have other things to do tonight, and I'll repeat: continuing this discussion will make no difference. We have policies. You don't like them. That's it. Best of luck. Fan-1967


  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 04:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP zephyr2k 04:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Different Tack Have you been in a newspaper or magazine article, or is your film on imdb, or something that would imply that anyone other than you knows anything about this? You don't know if you have or not? Whenever I'm in the paper, my Mom cuts out the article and sends it to me, and so do 15 other people. Lots of times, the publisher will let you know if you have a mention. If you don't know whether you've been covered, than you probably haven't. Did these festivals have materials or webpages or anything like that? The problem isn't that you're writing about yourself; the problem is that only you have been writing about yourself. If you do, then you'll probably be fine. If not, then your company probably isn't ready to be included yet. rather than talking about WP:CORP or the badly named WP:Vanity policy, we probably should be talking about the verifyability argument. How can people find the more complete resources to back up this article? If they wanted to learn more about you, where would they go, other then to your own web page? GumbyProf: "I'm about ideas, but I'm not always about good ideas." 05:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete both despite vigorous defense from creator; nonnotable film and production company. NawlinWiki 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Making the encyclopedia a tiny bit of a better place is enough for me. But hey - just to show there's no hard feelings, get notable enough and i'll write you up myself --W guice 11:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both Apparently the website only gets 60 hits from around the world a day and only a few hundred people have seen the films. (btw, when I read the high concept description of Teen Planet, I couldn't help but think of the opening movie in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri !! I hereby give you permission to use that quote in future blurbs/advertising for that film. You're welcome. ) Bwithh 12:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom. Marcus22 17:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. No references are provided to substantiate notability. Rohirok 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per Rohirok. --Guinnog 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both Presently not notable. Indicators: Alexa traffic on wolftime.com has no ranking data (as of 09-Sep-2006 22:10 UTC) At the same time, Google returns about thirty links to the phrase "Wolftime Films" which appears to reduce to about four distinct sources, none which furnish independent commentary on notability. (one times out, one returns a 404 error, one is [wolftime.com] itself, one references the phrase "wolftime" in an unrelated context). Gosgood 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The last comment was by far the most constructive of them all. Wolftime is going through a major growth period at this time. I will currently agree with the deletion of both articles since Wolftime is presently non-notable. However, I may write up the article again about halfway through the year after film festival season has started and more material verifies the company as worthy of recognition on Wikipedia. I apologize for any trouble I may have caused, and invite you to view the newly released "Silhouettes" here so you can at least get an idea of the work my company does. My apologies, and thanks. Kevinw91
    • Kevin91, you might want to keep a backup of the work you've put in here before it is deleted. In the future, it may be a helpful reference if you're planning to put it up again. Good luck with you and your company. zephyr2k 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The awarding bodies were Danville International Children's Film Festival and Berkeley Video and Film Festival. 542 (115) ghits and 381 (172) ghits, respectively. (Cute film, thanks for the link, Kevin.) —BozoTheScary 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have posted references to the project page. It will be apparent that both films, "Teen Planet" and "The Kid Who Talked Too Much" are films of 5 minute length, submitted for competition. Can't vouch for the reknown of the festivals, but it would appear to be amateur (possibly school) projects. Ohconfucius 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This lengthy discussion established two things: The nomination is correct, and the page's creator doesn't value our time (or his) very highly. My Alt Account 09:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Foul. Ad hominem and uncalled for. —BozoTheScary 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The way this discussion has been conducted is a complete waste of time, I don't see a nicer way to say it. My Alt Account 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Objection That last comment, which accuses 'X' of an ad hominim (sic. hominem) attack is a clear ad hominem attack and must be struck from the record. If every user has the mentality of this individual then I'm off to make a cup of tea! Marcus22 08:27, 13 September 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.