Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination matters

Destination matters

Insufficient evidence of notability for inclusion. Only references appear to be Amazon.com and the production's own site. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree that this article should be deleted. It is clearly reference material to a short film being released on Amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shodanproductions (talk • contribs)

— Shodanproductions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:35, August 3, 2009 (UTC).

Shodanproductions (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a violation of the username policy (promotional username.) Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. user:blt8472 - I agree. This is reference to a short film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blt8472 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Blt8472 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a pilot that no one wanted to air. Hairhorn (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is several articles on www.destinationmatters.net/press which shows its viability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blt8472 (talk • contribs)

Sources from the production's own site are generally not enough to establish notability. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, third party references. Fails guidelines for inclusion. →javért ^stargaze 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the press site Vicenarian listed above has plenty of newspaper coverage, although it's all local stuff. Noisalt (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Imagine Magazine coverage was regional coverage in New England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blt8472 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete needs reliable third party references. --Bsay~~USD~~CSU[ π ] 01:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dan and crew deserve it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.29.151 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the article that suggests notability, and nothing that I can find. That the movie is sold on Amazon is immaterial; no one doubts that it is. The "regional coverage" reported on their website, well, I'll wait until I see it in the article. I found nothing of any kind of substance. The IPs are coming out of the woodwork here, and I smell socks. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here is notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Some notability and local coverage. Can't really be merged with director or production company because none of them are ntoable and this is an independent production. Perhaps it can be userfied and if notability for the film/show or parties involved is established at a future date it can then be recreated. I don't think this work yet meets our notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not shown through reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep the sources are all newspaper and magazine articles. whether they are local or not is of not consequence.