The result was delete. I cannot fulfill the IP's request at the bottom as they do not have a registered account with a verified email address to send the requested information to. v/r - TP 21:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article concerns a prop from a short film. The author seems to think it is important but I cannot see why. The obvious course would be to redirect to the article on the film but this does not exist. Malcolma (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When giving the reason for proposing deletion are you referring to an article that does not exist on Wikipedia for the movie "Elliot's War" from which the prop was used (an article on Wikipedia such as "Forest Gump")? The movie prop has since gained interest as an educational tool (at Sonoma State University) and for that reason is of interest at least to me? Is what you want to see here: a link to a Wikiepedia article on the movie "Elliot's War"? Or are you just saying that you feel the entry is not important even if it was part of a movie? I object to this deletion Gregrank (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The dilemma of the independent film maker is that not every movie garners box office success or the media attention and debate like a "Forest Gump." The original reason for proposing deletion was because the "obvious course would be to redirect to the film article which does not exist." Once again the article does exist on IMDB and the entry points to the summary on IMDB (and other sources) for this entry. This is the same place (IMDB) information about the movie "Forest Gump" is available. Additionally the Wikipedia "Deletion guidelines" state that one can not delete an article just because you don't personally think it is notable. I have done my best to link to the existing references for this item. Some information taken from "special features" on the movie DVD purchased from the Amazon store (and not linkable). If you still feel it appropriate to delete this item, I won't take it personally. I will however like to comment that just because every item on Wikipedia doesn't have the depth of press as a Space Shuttle" or Star Trek "Enterprise" doesn't mean it is not notable or worthy of an entry.76.103.207.254 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I respect your decision to delete. Personally I believe the link on the Sonoma State University website meets wikipedia's criteria (as the source is notable i.e. a .edu). However, there are several more verifiable sources for this item on the web (a simple web search turns up 20, including user reviews at Amazon for the movie. It even has it's own website: http://osulrc.com Perhaps the problem is I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning how to use the tags and structure. I found a creative commons picture of the machine at a teacher page on another .edu site but If you want a link to something like a New York Times movie review or article on the prop (If that is your idea of "legit source"), I too can't seem to find a source like that. Gregrank (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell me what constitutes "notable"? Does one article in a small town newspaper count? Or if a small town newspaper publishes an article on the OSULRC-1 will you recommend delete because the newspaper and the town it came from is too small? The irony in this "delete" campaign regarding the OSULRC-1 is that the movie was produced by Big Song Entertainment. The domain name for BSE, http://www.bigsong.com, has been on the Internet since 1995. Isn't it "notable" that the prop from the movie that you all want to delete is produced by a company whose domain name is 5 years OLDER than Wikipedia (verifiable by a simple whois lookup.) The movie and the prop still fall under the category of "non-notable". The author/producer of this movie has also written and recorded over 100 songs, one reviewed (favorably) by Larry Flick of Billboard Magazine adjacent to reviews for Faith Hill and Katie Segal (both "notable" people by the standards you are applying to this entry). This song "Weekend Warrior" (copyright # PA 753-312)is featured in the movie "Elliot's War" the same movie as the OSULRC-1. But how does one link to a song review that was written in 1995 (pre-internet) and not currently available to link too? "Elliot's War" is copyrighted movie, submitted to film festivals and "Big Song Entertainment" is a registered trademark (Reg. NO. 3,253,814 registered June 19th 2007). I am not angry. Please understand, rather amused by the irony. The comment on the post regarding the link to SSU is amusing. As if someone hacked the site and stashed the photo and article there just to get on to Wikipedia? Pretty funny actually. Not every piece of educational material used in the classroom is linkable of the main page but these pages do get indexed by Google (and would get deleted if the SSU information security office didn't want the file there). If you can't leave all of the post up, maybe someone can assist in editing, keep what your rules allow and delete the rest or if you still must, go ahead and delete all. One of the Amazon reviewers of the movie "Elliot's War" is named Steve Meleon, author of the book "The Shroud" reviewed by Ransom Stephens, Ph.D., author of "The God Patent" who is notable as he is listed on WikipediaGregrank (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gee looks like I'm losing here (though I read this un-deletion process is not a democracy). I would only ask that if/when your version of "notable" coverage becomes available, the nominator of this deletion would consider in a timely manner, reviewing the supporting coverage (reviews, articles, publications)which you require and consider a timely un-delete of this entry in Wikipedia? Can you email me a copy of this material (deleted entry and discussion notes when you pull the trigger?) thank you and enjoy your summer (if you are in the northern hemisphere)76.103.207.254 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]