Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaniqua (2012 film)

Shaniqua (2012 film)

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

WP:BALL, also the official website, IMDb and blog entries are not WP:RS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I have added further references in the hope that this is not removed. The film is currently being filmed and is registered with the british film council (http://film.britishcouncil.org/shaniqua) and the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2112262/). If I can add anything else to help the article please let me know. I've also added a link (this is available on various sites) which shows the distribution agreement which was announced in september 2011, (http://www.metalonrock.tv/frozenecho/pressrelease-25sep2011.pdf). Kind regards Danielle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Kidman (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suprised that IMDB isn't recognised as a reputable source when it comes to films? I've also attached various interviews and news reports with cast and crew if that assists in keeping the page?

http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/st_albans_actress_in_starring_film_role_1_1160673 http://fameonline.co.uk/2011/12/local-girl-emma-louise-cargill-makes-it-to-the-big-screen/ http://www.movievine.com/interviews/interview-with-mark-noyce/ http://mattjhorn.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/mark-noyce-on-the-ropes-2011/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Kidman (talk • contribs) 14:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The relevant guidelines are at WP:NFF. If filming has really begun, then the question is whether it has gained enough attention to pass the notability test, as evidenced by the interest others are taking in it, rather than the efforts of those responsible for promoting it. After all, a lot of films have been made or proposed over the years, and only some ever got a general commercial release. Wikipedia is not a directory of every film project, and that would be a quite different undertaking, interesting as it might be. --AJHingston (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that many films 'say' they are being made and never see the light of day so understand your concerns, but this is being talked about in various interviews, news pages and I've also linked to the official press release from cornerstone media international who are the distributors. None of these are the efforts of people 'responsible' for promotion but I understand if you don't feel this enough to qualify for a Wikipedia entry at this time. If this is the case I appreciate your time in looking at this and I will submit it again when the film is released. Thank you. Danielle Kidman (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielle Kidman (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at the links on the entry and only three of the links can really be used as sources and they might be considered trivial at best since the film isn't the sole focus of the article. It's discussed, but sort of briefly and the update from Movie Vine is so brief that it can't be anything other than trivial. An article has to be in-depth to really count as a reliable source per WP:RS. The others appear to be press releases, links to the IMDB page, and links to a blog that isn't considered to be notable enough to count as a reliable source. The general rule of thumb is that IMDb is never used as a reliable source, press releases aren't usable because anything released by the people making the film is considered to be a primary source and not reliable, and blogs can only be listed unless they're by people who are considered to be such a notable authority on things that well, they'd have a page on Wikipedia themselves. Roger Ebert would be someone whose blog would be usable, but the blog of someone who just recently started blogging this year really wouldn't be. Even if they're not involved with production, we can't take sources from just anywhere. They have to be from sources that are considered reliable and somewhat notable. I did a search and I'm not pulling anything up that would be considered a reliable source per WP:RS. I don't mean to sound negative, but there's just not enough sources to really show that this film meets the strict and I mean STRICT guidelines for WP:FFILM. Don't get too discouraged by this since most non-mainstream films don't meet these guidelines. To really qualify for this you generally have to be a big blockbuster or a Juno-esque indie flick. You can userfy the article and keep the progress that you've done so far (WP:USERFY), so you can keep editing it on your user page and add reliable sources to it as they become available.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional: Just to let you know why IMDb isn't considered reliable, it's because anyone can edit IMDb. Just as teachers don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a source because too many fingers have their fingers in the wiki pie, the same thing applies to IMDb. (See WP:IMDB)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

OK, many thanks and I truly appreciate your comments. I will attempt to submit this again when more articles and interviews have been done solely on this film. Thank you.