Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Guard (film)

The Guard (film)

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

Press release for an unfinished film; fails WP:CRYSTAL Orange Mike | Talk 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as admitted spam. Wikipedia is not a PR outlet. DarkAudit (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where the author admitted it was spam? Here they claim it is not intended for promotion. The COI is obviously present but that's a separate issue and not AfD-worthy. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's direct from the marketing department. In two sentences he both confirms and denies it's for promotional purposes. Just because he says it's not spam doesn't mean I have to believe him. This is a textbook case of abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Marketers using Wikipedia to "spread information about" their product is flat unacceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe that the three sources I've added to the article constitute enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL: none of the bullet points in the latter seems applicable, and the sources make the topic "verifiable, and the subject matter...of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". I say 'weak' because I admit the sources give relatively scant coverage and more would definitely be ideal; still, I think they're enough. I haven't yet had time to properly footnote the article and remove specific unverifiable claims, but that again is not a matter for AfD. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While definitely written with a promotional tone, according to the sources, principal filming has begun, thus meeting the criteria for an article at WP:NFF. KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~improvement~~ coments made since nomination. Article tone is to be adressed through regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the sources were added before nomination. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I have struck that word and replaced it. More, I will myself look into addressing concerns with sourcing and article format. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and later... as promised, I have just gone through the article to neutralize POV, to address the sense of undue promotion, and to add proper inline citations to insure that the article's assertions are sourced. I note further that the author has been made aware of the problem with COI and that he has agreed to not edit this article in the future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All - many thanks for your contributions and my apologies for any earlier breach of rules. I am better informed now. I have requested a change of username and am awaiting to hear on this. In the meantime, would it be possible for someone to correct the list of producers for the film? There is a distinct difference between producers and executive producers and this should be refelected in the article. The distinction is clearly noted in references 2 and 3 - from Variety and Screen daily. Many thanks ElementDistribution (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Easily done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Michael. Would you also be able to correct the producer information in the main body of the article? The first line refers to the exec producers as the producers ElementDistribution (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, all requirements for an article have been met. Dream Focus 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]