Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slag best enemies

:{{la|Slag best enemies}} ([{{fullurl:Slag best enemies|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slag best enemies}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Slag: Best Enemies fails to meet notability under WP:NFF: future film "in production" with no particular notability to details of production. Closeapple (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Film-related deletions and Australia-related deletions.

—Closeapple (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per my own nomination. Old version was WP:CSD#G12; current version's WP:PROD contested. Not only fails notability under WP:NFF, but no evidence it will meet notability under WP:FILM even when finished, so not even an "almost". --Closeapple (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete appears to exist per gsearch and apparently is due out soon, but seems to be a very minor film; would suggest a rd if there was an obvious target since it does seem to be forthcoming. Userfy? JJL (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy delete. G11. Merely being real and coming out doesn't make a film notable. Was revived by an account matching the filmmakers name and has been beefed up by a WP:SPA. Changing my vote to speedy because of self-promotion of the soon to be released film. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:*G11 covers namespace. It's A7 that covers film, and A7 specifically disallows speedying a film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

::*Nope, not even wrong: "G" stands for "General", as in EVERY page, be it article, talk, Wikipedia, Template, or any other page type as yet conceived. To repeat, if a page -- ANY page -- meets CSD "General" criteria, such as being pure spam, it can be speedied. Period/full stop. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:::*Yup. Wrong. A7 is the applicable speedy. Go to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion if you disagree, but the "A" in A7 stands for "Article" and CSD:A7 specificallay addresses film and media. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

::::*Reality check for Michael: spam -- for whatever product or service in whatever media -- applies to every page, regardless of your attempts to carve out special exemptions. Film spam is no different from any other spam. To repeat, if a page -- ANY page -- meets CSD "General" criteria, such as being pure spam, it can be speedied. Period/full stop. So, again, not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::*I was not properly clear. Yes, G11 would apply if it were blatant SPAM, which this particular article currently is not... which is why A7 instructs it being sent to AfD. Here we determine that it is a poorly sourced article that fails WP:NFF. That's reason enough to allow it to be deleted and perhaps userfied until it can (if ever) meet WP:NF. And thank you for the good faith. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Snow delete/Procedural speedy prod delete - The prod had been on the article for the required length of time for deletion, but it was deprodded by a sockpuppet of a banned editor shortly before the prod would have expired and right before the sockpuppet investigation caught up with him. If this hadn't been listed for AFD the deprod would have been reverted (edits of block evasion banned editors are not valid -- I'm doing clean up after the sock right now) and the article would already be deleted by now. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice and allow return once film is completed and if if can meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Note Film articles are generally not fodder for CSD. That's why we have AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:*They are if they meet CSD criteria, such as being pure spam. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

::*No, sorry. Take a look at CSD:A7. An article about a film that makes an assertion of notability, even if not sourced, must go to AfD and not be speedied. It is at AfD where the deletion decision is to be made. And while I agree that it should be currently be deleted, an allegation of SPAM is something that could be corrected with proper editing per WP:CLEANUP if sources were available. I have myself un-SPAMMED articles when possible. Just takes a little work. The CSD for SPAM is G11, and G11 is for namespaces, not articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:::*Nope, not even wrong: "G" stands for "General", as in EVERY page, be it article, talk, Wikipedia, Template, or any other page type as yet conceived. To repeat, if a page -- ANY page -- meets CSD "General" criteria, such as being pure spam, it can be speedied. Period/full stop. Perhaps you yourself should read the criteria before making claims. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

::::*Yup. Quite wrong. Go to RfC or SpeedyTalk if you disagree, but the "A" in A7 stands for "Article" and CSD:A7 specificallay addresses film and media. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::*User:Calton is correct. Articles on films or media can be deleted under any of the G* criteria (provided they meet the definition, of course). A7 does not apply (because it does not cover films, although you might be able to spin YouTube films and the like as "web content"), but that doesn't mean it can't be deleted under, say, CSD G12. Any interpretation of the criteria that only the A-series of criteria apply to articles would be a highly unorthodox one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

::::::*I should add that in this case, none of the speedy criteria apply, so the nominator was indeed correct to bring it here for a further look, rather than slapping a speedy tag on it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

:::::::*Yes, my fault for not being clearer. I did not intend to indicate that "ONLY" A7 applied... just that in the particular case I felt that G11 did not. It certainly fails WP:NFF and I fully agree that a deletion best serves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::*Your clear implication was that films were somehow exempt from other speedy criteria, and, as I matter of fact, I'd say this particular one falls squarely under G11. --Calton | Talk 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::I was not properly clear. Yes, G11 would apply if it were blatant SPAM, which it currently is not... which is why A7 instructs it being sent to AfD. Here we determine that it is a poorly sourced article that fails WP:NFF. That's reason enough to allow it to be deleted and perhaps userfied until it can (if ever) meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom, per being predictive, and per being advertising. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:*ALL article on Wikipedia "advertise" their subjects and attempt to be as informative as possible. The one in question is not a solicitation, and is now written exactly as all film articles... with a clear lede, a plot section, and a cast section. It is a bit boring actually. I certainly agree it should be currently be deleted, but under the relevent guideline of WP:NFF. Its a pity that a new article contains format and style mistakes. But when possible, these should be addressed through editing, The nom was correct to send it to AfD. The current cleaned-up version might then be userfied to either auther User:Scottherford or major contributor User:Mrpink1988 so that it might be returned once WP:NF can be properly met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

::*Redfining "advertise" to rob it of all definitional and distinctive value may be convenient for your argument de jure, but it doesn't help anyone intending to use English as a useful medium of communication. I'd like to see you float that particular eccentric definition at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and see how long it lasts. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:::*In careful reading of WP:SPAM, I see no advert in this article. It is short, encyclopedic, and an attempt by a new editor to write an article on a film by following the format for such as set by MOS. His article is premature and properly fails WP:NFF. It will doubtless be deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails Nff. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, not speedy, but per WP:NFF. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

: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.