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 of the debate was Speedy deleted by JesseW. Rory096(block) 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Island Project[edit]

Only 183 google hits for "The Long Island Project" + film and only a few of those hits are about a film of that title. The only links I see are imdb and myspace, and the "official site" is on geocities. This seems like a use of WP as promotion. Delete. Gamaliel 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite that easy. EZZIE 20:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide some evidence to substantiate that this is in fact a "modern cult classic". Gamaliel 22:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The film is independently produced on a small budget. As with the producer's previous movies the film has failed to go mainstream, yet is important and highly revered in limited regions. The expectations for video sales and rentals are projected to surpass ticket sales. The film has yet to have its worldwide release, yet it is already coveted by fans of the director and actors and those who have been lucky enough to have an early screening. Modern cult classic is an oxymoron and is used to describe a movie's expectations rather than its current standing. Those who want to delete this movie's listing because they haven't heard of it are being bias. A majority of artists are not famous while they are creating their art; only mainstream blasé is. Cadebro 10:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This movie may become a cult classic loved by millions. It may land with a thud and be quickly forgotten by the few hundred who see it. No way to know. Wikipedia does not list people or things which may become popular. If in fact it does become notable, the article can be freely recreated at that time. Fan1967 14:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Come to think of it, it may be okay to have this out as a wikiarticle when the promotion and advertising begin. Should be soon, eh ? -- PFHLai 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting against recreate would probably be a good idea. Fan1967 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOCK PUPPET alert Now that EZZIE has been banned, suddenly we have the return of Katherine, the former voice of this film. We also have new user Almost Famous, with a very interesting list of contributions, who comes straight to this discussion almost immediately after registering. And by a remarkable coincidence, guess who has a myspace page [2] where he uses the nickname "Almost Famous". - Fan1967 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Flagging of This Article[edit]

I would ask the administrators on this site to reconsider the deletion of this article. The existence of the subject can be varified at the links below. The subject matter of the film itself is of public interest and is the reason for its existence on wikipedia. Please reconsider. EZZIE 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I refactored all of that information to the Talk page, where it belongs.  RasputinAXP  c 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I refactored all of the massive discussion back to the talk page again.  RasputinAXP  c 00:58, 17 April 2006 (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.
More