Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer of Mesa

Summer of Mesa

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about YouTube-only film, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- films need to show some evidence of their significance, such as noteworthy film awards and/or non-trivial attention from film critics. But this cites no media coverage at all, and even a Google search turns up no viable sources either: it only turns up databases and primary sources, not notability-supporting media. According to this article the film is still a few weeks away from its release, so no prejudice against recreation at a later date if its sourceability improves -- but if sources don't already exist yet, then a Wikipedia article isn't allowed to exist yet either. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable YouTube film. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Flori4nKT A L K 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put delete on hold for 72 hours. The article was created on 19:05, 9 May 2020‎‎ -- one hour before this request for deletion was initiated. It's an upcoming film. There have been and are articles about upcoming films that have not received the kick in the ass that this one has. The editor who created the article is a noob and obviously isn't 100% familiar with all the requirements for creating Wikipedia articles. He/she should be given 72 hours to add reliable sources. If they have not been added after the 72 hours have passed, then, yes, delete it. (It's distasteful how steam hammers are so zealously brought down on articles when there's nothing offensive about them to warrant such a response. No wonder so many people won't contribute to Wikipedia, and so many other say F-it and leave.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that AFD discussions have to be kept open for at least a full week, right? That means that nobody needs any special 72-hour suspensions of process, because the normal process already gives them more than 72 hours to attempt to fix the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pyxis Solitary, for your extremely kind and understanding point of view. You expressing that sentiment touches me and puts this at-first disheartening experience into a positive one. I also now completely understand and respect the citation rules of Wikipedia that I was not fully aware of. I want to fully abide by them. I had emailed a producer of the film yesterday afternoon after seeing this and they told me the following publications are coming out with articles within the next few weeks: Windy City Media Group (Chicago LGBT publication), Cape Cod Times, Boston Spirit Magazine, Bay Area Reporter and CapeNews to name a few. Will those sources be reliable? Furthermore, is it possible for the article to be hidden until I am able to cite these sources properly, instead of fully deleting and re-entering this information? I respect your decision and appreciate the time given to help better this article. I am a very strong proponent and fan of all inclusive and queer representation, especially those that feature people of color in leading roles. That is limited in media even today, so please forgive me for jumping the gun and wanting to further legitimize a project that I know will comfort so many LGBT youth before the right sources are made available. I now fully understand. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needyhaux (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, you should copy the article and save it in your Sandbox. Bay Area Reporter, Cape Cod Times, and Windy City Times are reliable sources and have Wikipedia articles. Boston Spirit and CapeNews.net (owned by The Enterpise) don't have WP articles, but they are acceptable sources. However, even though it is a film article, other than for WGA credits and MPAA ratings you cannot use IMDb as a reliable source because it's loaded with user-generated content and considered questionable. Take a look at this recently-created film article stub so that you get an idea of how to start one without encountering hassles. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have gone ahead and done so. I tremendously appreciate you verifying those sources, and clarifying about IMDb. I look forward to adding the aforementioned sources as they become available very soon and further conforming the article to Wikipedia's standards.Needyhaux (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and included a source from Windy City Times about the film. I look forward to adding the rest of the aforementioned sources as they come in! Thank you to everyone for the clarifications. Needyhaux (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]