Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost on Mars

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. Sandstein 09:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost on Mars[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot determine that this topic meets general notability guidelines. This from io9 was the only acceptable instance I could find, but it is fairly minor, and the topic needs more reliable sources and more coverage of the significant sort. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the io9 article you mentioned, it just mentions the name and says the guy hasn't been able to track down a copy to see it yet. So there is no coverage about it, only it was a film and about Mars, and that searching IMDB or wherever had it listed, probably added in by the guy making those films. Dream Focus 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation iff additional secondary source coverage is demonstrated. — Cirt (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be fair, the film is mentioned in a few articles by the Journal Gazette & Times-Courier (links are in the Wikipedia article), but I am not sure this local coverage qualifies per WP:NRVE, which says the topic must be more than "a mere short-term interest". Lack of reviews in particular indicate this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The title of one local news story is Local women star in independent film, with another one Two locals star in new movie, 'Empire of Danger' . Another starts with A local man's tale of a struggle between heroic astronauts and evil barbarians on ancient Mars can now be viewed on the small screen. Earlier this month, local director and producer Eric Shook of Westfield started distributing videotapes of "Empire of Danger," a sequel of his 2001 film, "Lost on Mars." I don't think any of these count towards establishing notability. Dream Focus 13:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added citations and references to page. I am having trouble with couple links because my computer is having issues and I keep greeting kicked off. I will try to fix links this coming week. My brief search came up with several news articles and reviews of this movie. I also noticed this article has been seen 2,828 within 30 days showing the movie has some credibility with the public. Other research I have done shows me that many of the websites and reviews about this movie have vanished/shut down since it's release date in 2002. The news articales and reviews that I have seen are written by staff writers from legit reliable news sources that have been around for more than 20 years and one of them 50 plus years.--Scantunl (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Scantunl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't believe anything you found are "from legit reliable news sources". Dream Focus 22:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As I am trying to fix things on the page Dream Focus is constantly removing changing things before I can finish with what I am doing. He has even deleted one good link already. I post something he deletes it within seconds after I post it.--Scantunl (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dream Focus is looking for confrontation, I am trying to improve the article as requested. I can't improve it if he keeps deleting things. --Scantunl (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)--Scantunl (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote in the edit summary why I removed things. I checked the sources, read through it, and commented on why it needed to be removed. There is no confrontation here. Find a reliable source that gives it significant coverage or it will be deleted. See WP:RS if you don't understand what that is. Post anything you find here. Dream Focus 22:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Drem Focus you don't allow me time to fix or change things. I posted one link and I went back to fix it and before I could you deleted the whole thing. I can't keep up with you. My computer is acting up! As far as notable well that's up to the administrator from my understanding, he will make his decision in a few days, so why not give him all the information. You also wiped out a bunch of external links, so now he doesn't have all the data. I am trying to help here, whats your motive?--Scantunl (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who bothers to click on any of those links and see what's there, will tell you they are not valid references or even external links. I've been here for 9 years with tens of thousands of edits. I am trying to help the encyclopedia. You hardly have any edits at all. What is your motive? Do you have any connection to this film company? How did you just suddenly find your way here? Have you ever edited with another account? Dream Focus 22:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per its production having some coverage but generally failing WP:NF by not having more. While we might congratulate filmmaker Erik Shook for his attempt at creating something on a budget, inclusion criteria require a bit more notice from reliable sources. @Dream Focus: Dead links were easy enough to correct using The Wayback Machine, but being dead was a strong indicator that media interest was lacking. @Scantunl: please take a look and study how I addressed some issues per MOS:FILM. If there are reviews from Europe or Asia (even if non-English), please offer them. IF deleted and if you'd like to work away from attentive eyes as you improve and seek assistance, I'd be happy to place it in your userspace as a draft. But in lacking a lot more coverage, deletion seems likely. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Nathan Shumate from Cold Fusion did a full review but it was lost from my understanding from a computer hack on his computer. He still lists it on rotten tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/nathan-shumate/worst?cats=&genreid=&letter=&switches=&sortby=&limit=50&page=5 Ryan Cracknel from Appollo movie guide http://apolloguide.com/index.shtml did a full review also but has vanished as well. I found a few others but I don’t know if these links will help. http://www.mid-day.com/articles/a-look-at-sci-fi-hollywood-films-based-on-the-planet-mars/15640153 http://www.boosharticles.com/2010/08/movies-about-mars-and-why-we-love-them/ http://marsmovieguide.com/ I will keep Researching as I have time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scantunl (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 October 2015‎

@Scantunl: Use The Wayback Machine here to see if you can find those old reviews. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Shumate's review was ""Pretty darned bad." ‐ Cold Fusion Video Reviews Posted May 21, 2003". If the only coverage is how bad it is, it isn't really notable. http://www.mid-day.com/ list two sentences about it, no reviews though. That isn't significant coverage. boosharticles doesn't say anything about the film at all, just list it as one of the films released about Mars. http://marsmovieguide.com/ doesn't review the film, it just list all the films about Mars and briefly what they are about. Dream Focus 00:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Careful Dream... even a bad movie could be (and many have been) found notable through coverage and commentary and analysis. This one seems to lack it though and it is through that lack we have non-notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:39, 20 October 2015 (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.