Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Danger

Add links
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. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Danger[edit]

Empire of Danger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • for deletion/Empire of Danger|2=AfD statistics}})
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film. These Eric Shook films are popping up after the articles about the filmmaker and his production company have already been deleted for lack of notability. This film was made for $100,000 and has no box office information at imdb. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment What do you want? Please be specific there are legitimate news paper articles listed on the page, websites as well. I checked Wikipedia and they state News paper articles are legitimate, so I posted them. Will you please tell me what would make you happy and I will locate it if I can. I am unsure what you are after, if you would just tell me, but be specific, it might help.

Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholun (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Everard proudfoot put a deletion tag on the page, after he deleted my secondary proof on the page. I had to re edit the page and put the news paper articles back on the page after he removed them. I think he is abusive to other users. One thing I have noticed is he will not be specific about information he wants, he automatically starts putting delete messages on your hard work pages you created. He has been harassing me from day one with threats of deletions. I was trying to add this movie for a friend, but never thought in a million years other users could be so mean. If they would have contacted me with their concerns I would have fixed any problems they had and a simple welcome to the site would have been nice as well. I am new here.

Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sholun (talk • contribs) 03:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What secondary proof? I don't remember having deleted anything. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than my addition of the afd template, the only edit I made to the article was this one, reverting the vandalism involved in removing the afd template. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if we want to start throwing around accusations, perhaps you can explain this? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you asccusation of my having been harrassing you from day one is also not true. You've been here since March, my first edits and interactions with you were two days ago. There were several other editors interacting with you explaining why all of your Eric Shook and Westfield articles were going to be deleted. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you send this to me? I asked you not to harass me and you send a threatening notice to me. These notices are used for legitimate reasons, like profanity, hate letters that sort of thing which I have done none of these things. You asked me a questions and I simply replied back to you, then I asked you for assistance about your concerns with this article. I do not understand your threats; there is no need to be hostile here. I am just trying to correct your concerns peacefully about these two articles. I delete a lot of stuff, I changed my mind, haven’t you ever changed your mind about something? No big deal to me I don’t like something I posted, so I delete it. Why is it a big deal to you? Why wont you tell me what you want, so we can straighten this article thing out. What are you looking for that would constitute legitimate?

Thanks kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even less notable than Lost on mars, with no significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources. Even RT has not a single review for it. Local news stories about local people cannot confer notability by themselves. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on I apologize for saying Proud foot deliberately removed the resources and that was wrong of me without solid proof to make that statement. I can only hope he works with me to solve these article problems rather than request to delete the articles. I correct my statement by saying the new resources I put up were removed right after he put up another deletion notice, anyone could have removed it after that. I hope that someone will help work out a solution to keep the articles rather than attack me for my ignorance how to use this site. If the articles can’t be redirected or some other alternate solution discovered, then I accept the deletion. I only hope that you see that independent movies without million dollar budgets and revenue should have a place on this website and help me find a place for it. The two news articles I posted from the Times courier are a professional solid news agencies with over fifty years in the business, with ties from Decatur Illinois to Chicago Illinois news agencies. I think they deserve the respect that they are a legitimate news organization. If you’re debating this movie should not be included because it didn’t make millions of dollars, or how many people watched them than this would be an injustice to the true core of any movie. There’s no scale to follow how many have to watch a particular movie to make it notable or not, both of these movies where notable to some extent maybe not by millions, but thousands possibly. I have provided legitimate news articles from reliable sources Times courier, listings from IMDB, the Mars Society among other, all which are notable in their own right. There comes to a point though where you can’t satisfy being listed in every news paper and company article to satisfy everyone. I truly hope you reconsider deleting these articles.

comment added by Sholun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is user edited and not a reliable source, nor are inclusions in directories a sign of notability. IMDB lists all movies ever made. Also, the Mars Society in the article is not the national society, it is a single branch in a single city and the page listed is not a review, nor significant coverage, it is a listing of titles they watched on movie nights. I'd urge you to read WP:NF and WP:N to understand why the film is not notable. Time Courier is a reliable source, no one has disputed that, but the articles are local pieces on a local person who happened to be in the films. That does not confer notability on the film nor her (anymore than a story about a business in its local paper makes the business notable). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: IMDB is not "user edited", as users do not have access to the IMDB database editing tools. While certainly anyone can "submit" information which then goes through some sort of vetting process by IMDB staffers, it is the IMDB staffers themselves who are the ones with access to the database editing tools. The staffers are the ones doing the editing... based upon the information submited and the IMDB vetting processes. That said however, simply being listed in the database, no matter how the information got there, does not impart any notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

I see little credibility with any of these sites that I found as references to a Mission to mars articale from this site. There is synopsis of the movies, reviews, etc, nothing too much different than the references I posted on my articles. What’s the difference other than they spent millions to make it? I see no well known news articles from the New York Times posted. Also they listed rotten tomatoes as a source and so did I but it was moved down on my page like it wasn’t accepted. I am not trying to make anyone mad, but I am trying to show my stuff I have post should count as credibility if the stuff below count as a creditable news sources. These links are the references to the movie Mission to Mars that I looked up from this site. Thanks for all the help, theres an awful lot of stuff to read here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_mars comment added by Sholun

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=missiontomars.htm http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mission_to_mars/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Dillon http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/cahiers.html http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_3 http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5176/year/2000.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.109.238 (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost on mars‎. It seems pointless to continue just copy/pasting responses between these two AfDs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll cut-n-paste... for emphasis.
  • Delete and userfy if requested. I made the article prettier... I converted the Wilipedia in-line cites to Wikilinks... I placed the two local news articles into proper ref format... but the majority of the text cannot be properly soucred, and there is no coverage of this film after March 24, 2003. While yes, it exists, and yes it is being distributed... not of the usual sources do anything but repeat what is on IMDB or the production's website. To User:Sholun... all you have shown us is that Mission to Mars has the coverage and notability that Lost on Mars does not. Find us some more coverage of THIS film that is not in blogs or self-published websites. Show us proof that it has screened at a festival anytime after 2009. Show us that schools have included it in the sylabus. Something. Please. Show us how it meets WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. Struck my delete. See rationale below. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Blogs or self-published websites I already did that, try going to the page and look at the bottom of the page. Rotten tomatoes, the mars society, IMDB, Sci-Fi online, io9, cinemarx, vidoeta, times courier. I see no self published, or blogs from me, what are you talking about? Why would it go to a festival, it was made in 2004 why would someone send it to a festvial after 2009? That makes no sense to me, I don't even think a festival would allow it since it was made in 2004. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... being "re-screened" at a sci-fi festival five years after initial release could indeed give a consideration toward notability.. as yes, many films do have life on the festival circuit that makes them notable. And yes... I went through proffered sources (again) just as you requested. Rotten Tomatoes is a listing that proves its existance, but the listing lacks any comentary about the film. IMDB is a more compete listing. It might verify the film but being listed in IMDB does not impart any notability. SFF World shows viewer submitted comments. I09 has a brief review of Lost on Mars but only refers to this film by saying "Turns out there's a sequel, and they're both coming out on DVD soon." It does not even use this film's name. Vidoeta is simply a listing. The Mars Society simply lists a brief sysnopsis twice on their "Mars Movie Guide". No coverage or commentary. The only two sources that work toward notability are the 2002 and 2003 articles in the local Journal gazette and Times courier, and they are less about the film than about a local actress IN the film. Believe me, I have no bias here, as I bend over backwards to improve articles whenever I can. I urge you to more carefuly review WP:NF#General principles and WP:NF#Other evidence of notability and WP:RS. With what's available out there currently, this film fails. And I am sorry. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, reply is at Lost on Mars AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [1] is a coverage of it. There are four articles total concerning the film from that one news source. [2] The article needs to be rewritten, of course, but bad quality is not a reason to delete it. Dream Focus 11:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To nominator, yes it is on IMDB, although I don't see what that matters or not. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1518195/ Spike television and others have it. [3] Notable television channels have played it. Dream Focus 11:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the article needs rewriting and sources need to be added. Afterwards the article will be fine. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the big point - it has NO significant coverage in reliable sources. So what sources, specifically, do you claim will establish that the film is notable when none appear to exist? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability requirements for films. SnottyWong talk 22:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per at least 4 articles found dealing with the film: [4], [5], [6], and [7]. I have struck my "delete" above. While the author's arguments are obviously being made by someone totally unversed in WP:RS, there are reliable sources that deal with the film... either directly or as part of their context. However, I my "keep" is "weak" because of the local nature of the coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has the same problem as with the other, those are local articles about a local film maker, and the creator is basically a younger brother proud of his big sister for being in the films[8] Local coverage of local folks does not, by itself, give the film notability, and that is all this film has - the local paper talking about its citizens. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael that's not significant coverage of the film, since it's all from the same website. Also, this: "Director James Cameron’s Aliens for instance, proves that it can be a success to make a sequel. Not to say Empire of Danger comes close to an excellent film like Aliens, but you have to remember that Empire of Danger didn’t have a million dollars to back the production." Of course that can be fixed/removed, but the COI is obvious here. Some people may be able to write a neutral article on something close to them, but this brother simply can't. Mike Allen 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Same rationale as the other film.. no significant coverage to build notability. Mike Allen 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: so we cannot find many google hits right now. So what about 7 or 8 years ago because Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. This is the problem with articles about older movies. Sources get harder to find, but that does not mean that they are not out there. We should at least spend a little extra time looking for sources before deleting the article, because notability does not degrade over time. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not operate on that concept. There is a difference between sources not existing and their being difficult to find. In this case, they simply don't exist beyond the local paper coverage. We don't keep articles around that have no demonstrable notability just in case a source ever appears. Any editor always has the option of requesting the article be put in their user space to go search for sources at their leisure, but at this point no one has provided any demonstrable evidence that there is even a likelihood of sources exists. So why spend "extra time" on a pointless exercise? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to read down the line tonight at some of the comments and I saw Schmidt gave a weak keep. Thank you for re-considering and giving some hope. I appreciate it more than you will ever imagine. I am looking for other news articles on Google, but you guys are right they have probably been deleted over the years and they are hard to find. Dream Focus found this one http://media.www.dennews.com/media/storage/paper309/news/2003/04/18/TheVerge/Eastern.Students.Star.In.Movies.Filmed.In.EastCentral.Illinois-420928.shtml and I didn’t even know it existed.

I have a question why is it when I log in it takes me to a page, but when I go to another page it automatically always logs me out. I can’t stay logged in for some reason, so my signature is always messed up. It doesn’t say Sholun when I hit signature above. --99.34.109.238 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a local source (again). For the log in issue, have you made sure your browser has cookies enabled? It sounds like it isn't letting your browse keep them.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empire_of_Danger&oldid=1144329555"