Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Library (movie)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Library (movie)[edit]

The article was moved to the Article Incubator in December 2012. There has been no edits since then and the film is still non-notable. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why has it been nominated for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the Article Incubator was to improve potentially notable articles, with the stipulation that editors would try to work on it. No such thing has happened. WP:STALEDRAFT is the reason, but not by the letter since it isn't in userpace. Both Wikipedia space and user space are not a place for articles with no notability to sit there forever. Nominating incubated articles with no work completed on it in a while is not an uncommon thing in MfD. If you want another reason, the notability guideline for films should be sufficient. In order to stop this article from being deleted, you would need to show the film's notability, which I attempted before nominating this for deletion. SL93 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your point is that there is no reasonable prospect that notability will be established, and so the incubator would be better off without this article, then it does not fit that you are also talking about the incubator in the past tense, talking about incubator volunteers working or not working, and lobbying me to rescue the article by searching for sources. Six months is not "forever", there is wp:nodeadline at Wikipedia, and wp:stale draft is not applicable to such a recently-incubated article. There is already a process in the incubator for processing aging drafts. If this article continues to sit without a sponsor, it should go to the greenhouse in about January 2014. The article is already deleted from mainspace as per a community decision, so there is no requirement to rescue it. I did a quick search, and I don't know if the topic is or is not notable, but I rarely work on fiction topics. This is one of the benefits of the greenhouse process, and something that has not happened here, that a relevant Wikiproject is notified. In this case, the talk page of the AfD should also be notified. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, you're defending a non-notable topic. SL93 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you say that, doesn't mean that I agree. I've dropped a note on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Library (movie), maybe that will attract some attention. Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have an opinion about notability either way, as you said earlier. There is a process, but the length of time for a stale draft can be interpreted differently among editors. I don't understand someone having such a strong conviction to keep an article in Wikipedia space without even knowing if the topic is notable, and when there was a previous AfD that resulted in delete. SL93 (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The community as per the AfD put this article in the incubator. There is no deadline at Wikipedia. A stale draft argument does not strengthen a non-notable argument, it weakens it. I suggest that you contact Schmidt, who technically only wanted this article incubated for a few weeks. Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't weaken it because nothing changes this being a non-notable topic. SL93 (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't presented repeatable evidence that the topic is sufficiently non-notable that there is no possibility of improvement. Talking instead about wp:stale draft makes it look like you yourself are not convinced by the strength of your Google searches. If you've got a case, why not contact Schmidt? If he agrees this article is history, we can move on. Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced by the strength in my searches, but I was not convinced that I needed to prove why it could be notable in the future, and I still find that reasoning to be complete nonsense. There is now a consensus to delete so I can now say, I told you so. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you are trying to avoid making this adversarial, and yet in other ways you have not been trying to over-argue your case. No one has shown that the topic is sufficiently non-notable that there is no possibility of improvement. Just the opposite, we know that we don't yet know about wp:notability for this topic. What has changed is the consensus from the AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I argue about something that I don't consider important? SL93 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that there Wikipedia has no deadline is irrelevant. WP:INCUBATE clearly states that incubation is not "A means of preserving sub-standard content on Wikipedia indefinitely, including content that has been deleted per consensus in a particular content for deletion discussion" - which this currently falls into, since no work has been done for 8 months. Also, note the deletion criteria here: "If an article has been assessed and does not meet the assessment criteria, and there is no possibility it can meet the criteria with further work, and a reasonable time has already been given and there is no possibility it can meet the criteria with any further time allowed - the article should be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD." Again, 8 months have passed, the film is still non-notable, therefore it should go. At the very least, it should be userfied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete without prejudice for undeletion or recreation if this thing is ever released and gets the requisite coverage. At the 2012 AFD, I opted for incubation because the film was purported to have a release date of January 2013 and coverage was anticipated. However, and as is suffered by many low-budget independent films, this one failed to meet production's expectations. I note that its official website does not share any release date, just an ambiguous "Coming in 2013". When/if it does gain release, the topic can be revisited. Fine with userfication should anyone wish to keep an eye on it and improve it enough for return to mainspace. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 23:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete (return to incubation on request) WP:Consensus#Consensus Can Change, and the consensus to incubate from the AfD is no longer current. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we need to be marking review dates and sponsors when possible on incubated articles. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The consensus has not changed from the AfD. The consensus here is that no notability has been shown for the article still. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the incubation result has changed. I don't understand why anyone would continue to debate this matter without even knowing himself if the article is notable or if it will ever be notable. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.