The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete everything per WP:V, WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL. Sandstein 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary article: Shattered Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable film. The author of this article has uploaded and added everything else related to this film.

Here are all the articles and images related to this film:

• Shattered Heroes
  • Image:Shattered Heroes Poster.JPG
• John Ceallach
  • Image:John Ceallach.JPG
  • Image:Captain James Russell.JPG
• James Hall (actor)
  • Image:James Hall.JPG
  • Image:James Hall Himself.JPG
  • Image:Officer James Hall.JPG
  • Image:James Hall Rancher.JPG
• Robert Gordon Spencer
• David McDivitt
• Shattered Heroes character biographies
• Jesse Johnson (director) (added by closing admin)

Phew. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Hirohisat ^Talk 07:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All The Author did not make any of these, I did, do not delete them, it took me too much time and it will not be wasted. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are the author I mentioned; the author of the article, not the author of the film. Sorry I wasn't clearer on that; I've rephrased the initial wording to be a bit clearer. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. No reliable sources in sight, and the whole construct is built on a shaky foundation of WP:CRYSTAL. Deor 11:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears that the film is in production and currently being filmed. WP:CRYSTAL can't apply if the film is confirmed, which it is. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A petition will be started to keep this article after reviewing the dialog and discussion here in, it would appear that the discussion is bias and not being reviewed fairly or objectively by the supporting evidence. talk 9:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Source? Just because it has something on IMDB doesn't mean that it is notable enough for an article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The articles for the people are basing the guys' notability on their involvement with the movie, which does not exist. And even if this small-time production should be completed, there's no assurance that it will get widespread distribution or otherwise prove to be notable. That constitutes crystalballery enough for me. Deor 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. IMDb.com shows through the Pro Access this film is in Production with verified, secured, escrow funds in the amount of $10,000,000.00. Small - time Production? That statement in itself is crystal ball. Speculative and not fact! A noted media source like IMDb.com viewed by millions is hardly considered not reliable! IMDb.com also shows that the production has a distribution company attached. This can only be achieved through IMDb.com when a letter of intent in writing is provided to IMDb.com showing pre-distribution foundation through theatrical and or DVD release. In addition there are several SAG Union actor's attached to the production that can only be secured through contractual agreements with the Actor's Talent Agents and or Talent Managers. For SAG Actor's to be attached to a film production means that the Production has supplied SAG with documentation, permits secured from State and Local agencies for filming as well as provided documentation of safety guidelines, permits again from state and local agencies providing proof that the Production of the film meets all safety guidelines, has secured EMT/Firefighter resources as well as Law Enforcement presence on-set and during filming. That is how IMDb.com establishes weather or not an upcoming film production is to be listed. It is the difference between rumored / Crystal Ball info and information brought to light through well established guidelines and channels that historically have an extremely long paper trail. (Analogy) You take your car to a mechanic and he tells you that your starter is bad. Do you believe him? You take your car to an accredited Automotive Shop and they bring you the starter from your car with test results from a certified and recognized industry standard test machine and show you the results. The high end and low end voltage not meeting normal operating capacity and advise that the unit needs to be replaced. talk 9:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. The Film is confirmed, and is in fact, Re-Shooting, which on IMDb the Director states. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB is not a reliable source. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Evula is More of a reliable source? Again you are basing this off your own opinion and not the opinion of millions of view IMDb.com daily and believe it to be a reliable source. This is bias! So because you are an Editor here, your opinion matters more? These discussions are to be accounted by the rules, guidelines, policies and practices set fourth by Wikipedia. This has been established in an attempt to keep personal judgment out of the equation so that subject matter can be reviewed fairly and objectively. I do not see this happening here! Again such infractions could be a smoking gun and damaging to Wikipedia in a whole. Re-asses and re-evaluate according to proper guidlines! According to the reliable source IMDb.com would be a reliable source. Further more, the media source "Estrada Media" is also a reliable source. IMDb.com uses the same methodology as Wikipedia for making such decisions. So how can they be any less reliable than Wikipedia itself? talk 10:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F. Nuttah68 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also from that same guidline; # MySpace: MySpace is generally not acceptable even as a self-published source, because most of it is anonymous or pseudonymous. If the identity of the author can be confirmed in a reliable, published source, then it can be used with the caution appropriate to a self-published source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F Note this as the myspace supporting links on these articles are listed in IMDb.com as being verified official web presences for the Actor's in question. The myspace.com web presence for Actor James Hall is also listed in the Estrada Media Publication in print given by the Actor himself during the interview as being his official myspace presence. Also I have found archive audio from "Inside Entertainment" conducting live radio show interviews with each of these Actor's in question as well as the director. Each gave their official myspace page url during the interview as well as the myspace url for the Shattered Heroes official myspace presence as well as the imdb.com url for the Movie. The more I research this the more I find these guys in the public eye! I just questioned the Chief Editor of "movievine.com" if they have heard anything relative to these actor's or the film, "Shattered Heroes". The Chief Editor said, "Yes, we are currently writing an article about these upcoming professionals which will be featured soon in our New Film's section as well as Entertainment News.talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Comment. Well how about this, I asked the Director myself and he said it is. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 05:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What the director thinks is irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment . . . and that director (Jesse Johnson (director) is "most notable for his role of writing, acting in, and directing Shattered Heroes". That article should be included in this group deletion --KenWalker | Talk 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. I proposed the James Hall article for deletion earlier and suggested it ought not to be written by the subject. There was a considerable effort to improve the layout of the article and to cite sources. At that point Obi-Wan took over. A rewrite followed when another editor deleted much of the article as a copyvio. It still comes down to a group of articles that lack notability. That might change someday, but in the meantime, these articles don't belong here. --KenWalker | Talk 07:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even the film as the main article is not notable, but if a more modest approach had been tried, a single article might perhaps have not been noticed. Another example of how COI can mess things up. DGG (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Most notable" for his role in a film that hasn't yet been released. Says it all really! A non-notable possibly upcoming film "starring" a group of people nobody's ever heard of. Doesn't deserve an article unless it becomes successful and neither does anyone associated with it. At the moment these are no more than poorly-written puff pieces. "Sgt. Rick Maddison is true grit Top Sergeant that worked up through the ranks from the Calvary with Colonel Iverson. A career military man who is known for getting the job done!" Give me a break! -- Necrothesp 01:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A group of people nobody has ever heard of? Again, IMDb.com is viewed by millions of people. The Pro Access and discussion boards show "Star Meters" for every entry in IMDb.com. These statistics are based off media releases, interviews, publications, user votes, etc. The star meters of all the involved talent with the production are very respectable. In addition the article shows verification of a print publication by Estrada Media in FL. I called this entity through the address information listed for the company and verified that the article and interview of Actor James Hall, did in fact take place. This also is not Crystal Ball. It was a real interview, with a real recognized Media Publication entity. So, it would appear that the event did in fact take place and was factually printed by the Media Resource based of the actual events and accounts of the interview during the interview process. This also shows public interest. Why would a media resource do an interview on someone they have not heard of or does not believe is of public interest? That does not sell magazines! Puff Piece? You are commenting on a dialog from a script in reference of the character bio. Hardly appropriate! Please show some dignity and common respect to others. This is not a slander session but a discussion on an article. When you make it personal that shows your judgment is clouded and based of personal views rather than the information at hand and in itself is against wiki rule, policies and guidelines for making these decisions. Further more through researching the actual article from Estrada Media, "On The Outside Magazine" I found this magazine is a professional distribution to film industry professionals and that during the interview it was discussed and validated that the Productions "Movie Poster" is displayed at the National WWII Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. Also that Clint Eastwood while attending a tour of the museum after premiering "Flag Of Our Fathers" saw the poster and contacted the Production company with interest and visited a set in Alabama where the Production Company was filming. This was covered by a local TV News Station and I was able to watch archived News footage covering the event. Further research revealed that the National VFW is supporting the film Nationwide as they are in support of the film as it touches on the subject matter of PTSD (Post traumatic Stress Disorder). During that research I was advised by VFW personal that the film was also being recognized by France as they want to have the film inducted into their Historical Society as the film also contains a Pro-French account of the French's involvement in WWII. France has already played the Film Teaser at Cannes and is in negotiation of having the film's Theatrical Debut at Cannes. It would appear that the following of this film is wide spread and of not only public interest but also of interest to National Organizations. I think that the deletion of this article may bring some bad Public Media to wikipedia. Has anyone though about this or explored this side of the situation? Further more with the dialog being used by some of the Editors here like, "Puff Piece" etc. can be viewed by the public. Anyone wishing to read this discussion as I have. And even post without using a user name. The dialog here shows bias and is clearly not being viewed by proper guidelines. The dialog here and the decision process is not being executed fairly or by supporting evidence provided. Weather or not your view is that IMDb.com is accurate enough in your opinion, is just that. Your opinion. The fact is that millions of people who view IMDb.com daily rely on the information and follow their interests about and surrounding the film industry at that media resource. Do to that fact! IMDb.com makes every effort to ensure that their content material is accurate, founded and supported. Not much different than that of Wikipedia. They to have discussion boards and Editors who review and research the material in a professional objective and un-bias manner to establish and decide weather or not the content material stays. And the "Fact" that the material on the Actor's in question, as well as the film material are listed proves to be interesting as a body of researches have explored this same subject matter here and decided that the material would be listed on IMDb.com. talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• IMDB is still not a reliable source, which is required to verify notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• IMDB Is Regarded as a trustworthy as well as recognized as an authority on the TV/Fiilm industry. How it operates and conductions business as well as how "Movie Productions" are structured, validated and executed. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. "From" reliable source Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your opinion on weather IMDb.com is reliable or not is without merit! Publicly IMDb.com is regarded as trustworthy and is regarded as an authority on the content they publish. There for by wikipedia guidlines is regarded as a reliable source! Again the purpose of this policy is so that articles are not tainted or improperly deleted. Bottom line is, your opinion to weather or not IMDb.com is a reliable source is unfounded and invalid. And it still does not address the other supporting publications listed. When there are several different media publications on the same subject matter. That is a validation in itself that the subject matter is valid. That is the whole purpose of multiple supporting resources be listed on an article. talk 10:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources. IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Nothing at this discussion will change that decision arrived at through consensus. Likewise, MySpace is not a reliable source, so these articles as they stand are supported by no reliable sources. Nuttah68 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please Follow Link http://www.kauz.com/news/local/4512136.html Here is news footage as well as an article called "A Taste Of Hollywood" from News Channel 6 KAUZ in Wichita Falls and Lawton discussing Director Jesse Johnson and "Shattered Heroes". I will continue researching this. Is this more reliable for everyone? A TV News Station? How much more research would you like done? Would you like these notable resources to be listed on the page? I am finding more and more and more as I continue to research this. Although I get the feeling still that no matter how much reliable sources I gather that for some reason no one will listen or take them into account. Next I am sure someone will say that a TV News Station reporting news is not a reliable resource either. The unfortunate thing is that others here could be researching this also. I guess it is easier to just delete an article? One might ask why I am doing this? Well, like Obi, I am a fan of these guys. I simply was sold on the film when I saw the "Shattered Heroes" myspace page with the teaser trailer. Being a military man who has suffered from PTSD I really was very impressed with the message and how they are bringing this subject to life. They actually care! And it seems that so many do not. Also it was very easy to see that this film is well organized, factually accurate with equipment and props through the teaser. The tanks are correct period and design as well as the weapons used right down to the uniforms. They have the support of the WWII Historical Society Re-enactment Team and I found out they are using the WWII HSRET as consultants as well as using a WWII Airborne Demonstration Team from the Fredrick Airbase in Fredrick's Oklahoma run by Top Sgt. Richard Wolf. http://www.wwiiadt.org/index.html In short, is anyone of the Editors here willing to help with this and give some direction as to what and were this content needs to be placed to keep this article alive? I will devote the time to continue my research as the more I find I am actually getting motivated and excited for these guys. The info is out there, it is just taking some time and research to find the data. Would anyone disagree that the Channel 6 News that I referenced and provided a link to is a reliable resource? The only infraction I can really see here is that maybe the initial research was not complete and maybe the right reference material was not used. But clearly this film is in production and being recognized. OK, understood that by consensus here, IMDb.com is not reliable, but there are other reference sources listed on the page and again I am looking for more. I would just like a little guidance and direction as to what everyone is looking for? And again I would like to express some concern as some of the comments by editors almost seem to be attacking these guys directly and they are not even involved with this or the discussion. Obi is a fan and I am. I am a disabled Vet and have lots of time to devote to this. I heard of this film through my local VFW and some of my mates here are willing to research as well. This group has traveled to many VFW across the country already presenting this project and showing support to vets. They are even scheduled to visit our VFW in coming months. I assure you that all of us here and at other VFW posts are supporting this project "Nationally" and aim to continue. Here is another link I found with the Movie Teaser on Internet TV http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,2247767677.aspx here is the link I found with the archive audio from Inside Entertainment http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=2129 in addition to the DJ's myspace page here http://www.myspace.com/ctactor and was recognized as "WINNER- OUTSTANDING NEW TV PROGRAM IN THE CT AREA 2007! SKYE AWARDS. IM AN ACTOR/TV & WEB RADIO HOST!" http://a546.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/77/l_ad5990ba5c59ef172aad8a8bd5ab60e9.jpg So I believe him to be a reliable resource as well. In addition I found at wga.com that the script is properly registered as I saw that in the reliable sources section that the WGA is considered a reliable source. The WGAw registration number for "Shattered Heroes" is 1188086. This film is also registered with the Library Of Congress. The Production Company and the Film are also registered with SAGIndie which can be validated at this url http://www.sagindie.org/directory/national-101-producer.html They are listed on the front page. I am in the process of obtaining this information form the Production Company Skyline Pictures who is being very helpful on providing any information needed. It may take some time if some patience is extended by everyone here while I continue with the research. So will some patience be extended while I continue research? talk 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Delete the lot as lacking in notability and reliable sources. If the film is released and those involved go on to make their names, the required articles can be created then. Nuttah68 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The extensive debate about what is or isn't a reliable source ignores the fact that a group of aspiring actors with a film in the works does not demonstrate notability for either even if the sources are reliable. --KenWalker | Talk 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Notability" ((more than trivial but less than exclusive)) Understood. But what about the films these gentleman have already been in? The fact that their name is in the credits of films already is notability correct? Just trying to follow along here. I was researching Mr. David McDivitt on IMDb.com. He has film credits longer than my arm. In films like "Final Approach" with Anthony Michael Hall. "Oceans 13" with Clooney, Pitt and other's. ETC. Not all Actor's are household names but still have a very large fan base and followers of their work. Take Paul Giamotti for example. Or Thomas Hayden Church. Notability is notability right? Or is that measured here some how and have to meet a certain statistical number? As I reviewed the Notability guide lines it appears that notability heavily relies on the verifiable objective evidence. Which is already listed here. So I am even more confused why the resistance now? In short this is what is sated on the Notability page, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." So each supplied resource is independent and and several sources makes it significant coverage. Please explain because each reference I am given appears to not be being followed in this debate. So again I feel it to be bias. It also states "Significant coverage" which means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is ((more than trivial but less than exclusive))." It also references "Secondary Sources" which I see on Mr. Hall's page. Secondary recourses like "On The Outside" magazine by Estrada Media that Interviewed Mr. Hall on his current and past film works. This was published and is in distribution. I also see as a secondary resource "Who Is Who In America" which is also published and in distribution. So does that not qualify to this standard? Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article. talk 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Comment Also from the notability page. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right. The table to the right lists, film, people, etc. Notability is not reflective of "Fame", "Importance", or "Popularity". It states that a subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guidelines. General Notability guidelines is that the subject is being covered by independent outside resources. Hummmmm And this is being covered by independent outside resources. So not only does it meet the notability guideline but also the verifiable resources and secondary resources guidelines. Now do you see why it appears to be bias? The references made by the editors here listed are in direct conflict with the guideline criteria. References are being made by editors about fame and popularity and when these guys make a name for themselves yet the guidelines state that notability has nothing to do with fame, or popularity. Just that the subject material has more than trivial independent coverage and less than exclusive independent coverage. I believe the references listed by the editors are out of context of the guidelines. Would you not agree? I may be a disabled vet, but I am an educated one. talk 18:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Appeal I would like to know if this can be reviewed by other editors from this medium? Other than those currently in the discussion? To be re-reviewed. No offense to anyone here, but but my previous comment reflects why this request is being made. talk 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Comment These articles share some content however are separate articles. Why are these articles being merged together for deletion review? Can articles be blanketed together for Deletion Review? talk 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • They're being run at the same time because they're all related. If you wanted to send them to deletion review, I suppose you could submit them all at the same time as well (though you'd only reference this one AfD). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have some related content but appear to be different articles. The Shattered Heroes article is about a film. The Articles James Hall, Robert Spencer, David McDivitt, John Ceallach appear to be biography articles. They are related by link references as it would appear some of these individuals who are working on this film also have biography articles. This appears to be common on all articles on wikipedia. Especially where films are concerned. For example George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg both have Bio articles on wiki yet the film "Three Kings" they both worked on. So the two would be linked to the movie page for "Three Kings". Hence related. So if there were a problem with the movie page would it be customary to just delete their Bio Articles? Blanketing them all together for a deletion review? This is very confusing. If these articles have issues and they are separate issues it might be less confusing to have them listed separately for Deletion Reviews so no accidental infractions are made when under discussion. It would appear to me that if all are blanketed yet have different issues that mistakes will be made in judgment and would not be a neutral point of view consensus. It also make interpretation very difficult.

talk 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Comment Why is this article being reviewed for deletion? Non-notable film? This article is listed as schedule or expected films A film scheduled or expected has not been released or been under movie review for notability. There for the notability would not apply. The article should show supporting individual resources as well as secondary resources validating that the film has been planned to be filmed/released. This article has provided the necessary resource links to establish it has been planned to be filmed/released. Note that Crystal Ball would not apply here either. The article author has not referenced in any way what type of movie reviews the film will have or how much money it might make. The author is just simply listing the film as a scheduled or expected film There for the article is satisfactory listed for the article category. If the article stated for example, "This film will be a blockbuster.", that would be constituted as Crystal Ball. talk 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • A movie being under development does not make it notable. None of the sources you've provided have, in my opinion, established notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is listed under Scheduled or expected films. None of the films listed under this section are notable. Or being requested to establish notability. It is a category for expected films. Films that have not yet been released. How can something have notability prior to being released and seen? If it is a requirement that scheduled or expected films be notable then the whole category Scheduled or expected films should be deleted. Please explain how notability applies to an article listed in this section? The Category guidelines does not mention notability guidelines as an article requirement for articles in this category. 'confused' talk 21:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • The Bourne Ultimatum was notable well before it was released, because it was (a) based on a notable book, (b) featured notable actors, (c) directed by a notable director, and (d) produced and distributed by notable companies. This film fits none of those criteria. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think I understand your point of view on the notability, however I disagree with it for a couple of reasons. One, Notability Guidelines state the interpretation to be distinct from "Fame", "Importance" and "Popularity". The article should be of Encyclopedic suitability. Encyclopedic Suitability is established by topic matter that warrants notability do to public interest established by Multiple Independent Sources. Multiple meaning, Not Trivial but less than Exclusive. Two because using the notability of those involved with the film does not necessarily make the film notable. However the attempted usage of the film "The Bourne Ultimatum" seems like a strong argument. But to rebuttal that attempt I will use a film meeting similar Notable consistencies from your point of view. The film "Postman" Directed by Kevin Costner. He, by your interpretation of Notable Requirements, is notable. He is a notable director. The film was based of a Notable book with Notable Actor's, a notable Production company and a Notable Distribution company, etc. Yet the film was not notable (By your own Interpretation of the Nobility Guidelines), had very poor reviews and made no money at the box office. To state that a film listed here on wiki needs to only be listed if all involved are Notable by your interpretation of Notable Requirements is going to make a notable film is Crystal Ball. The Notability of those involved with a film does not make the film Notable or ensure by your interpretation that the film will be Notable. The Notability factor by your interpretation is decided by the viewers and no one can anticipate the outcome till the film is released! Also it is interesting that you chose that particular film because one of the Actor's Bio Articles you put up for Deletion Review here for not having any Notability by your Interpretation, Mr. Robert Gordan Spencer has a credit for working on that film and also has a picture with the Director, Paul Greengrass from the set while working on that film as well as with Mr. Matt Damon while working on set on that film. Here is the URL to both pictures which is stored on Mr. Robert Gordon Spencer's official myspace page.

http://a298.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/8/l_aed633a313bd448f1bd35956d15fc3f1.jpg http://a243.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/57/l_edbb8ecf9ea094a098c9d77b84d27092.jpg Mr. Gordon has also made several appearances on Saturday Night Live. Also note that both of those pictures are also on IMDb.com not only on Mr. Gordon's IMDb.com Profile but also that of the Movie Page for the film and the pictures were taken by the Universal Pictures Set Photographer. Also Mr. David McDivitt, whom is also on this list for Deletion Review as not having a Notability by your interpretation has had credits in films such as "Final Approach" with Anthony Michael Hall, "Posiedon" Starring Kurt Russell and Richard Dryfus. Mr. McDivitt was a principal cast member on the series "Over There" and has appeared as a guest on "Jimmie Kimmel Live". His IMDb.com is http://imdb.com/name/nm1796851/. And I believe him to be Notable by your interpretation of Nobility. So again I stress that all these being blanketed together is deceiving and confusing. talk 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.166 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL (as well as possible notability concerns). >Radiant< 10:57, 15 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.