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. WP:RS and WP:N being the most common arguments here for deletion. --JForget 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Skies[edit]

Toxic Skies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I seconded the prod; it was removed with the following justification: "I definitely vote against deletion of this article. I think we use "not notable" justification to delete article on topics we personally don't care for too easily. The plot can be verified on the producing company page (which is linked as a reference from the article), interest mainly to "Chemtrail conspiracy" buffs is noted, IMDb reference is there... This is encyclopaedia; things should be covered here regardless of our values. When I go through an actor's or director's filmography here (in this case, Heche's, I like to be able to drill through to every movie's entry."

I don't think this is convincing. I tried to find reliable sources that mentioned this film and I came up blank. References to IMDB and the producer's site are not enough, we need reliable secondary sources. At the moment, it's not notable. Fences&Windows 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my original prod and the above. Basically fails WP:N. Verbal chat 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources are provided, no way that this can be notable. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No in depth coverage found in independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Failed to find anything either. Nevard (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice and userfy the cleaned-up article to author. Despite the notables in the film, I found only one weak source. Let it come back if/when it can meet WP:NF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable  Chzz  ►  15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per my arguments listed at the top of the page. What other "reliable secondary sources" are needed besides an IMDb entry and producer's homepage? A 500-page monograph by a holder of PhD in film theory? Let's be consistent, people: we have collections of articles tens of thousands words long on obscure computer games or unremarkable SciFi TV series with the "universe", characters an plots described in excruciating detail, all without "reliable secondary sources", and nobody complains! Let's admit that we want to delete this article not because of Wikipedia principles, but because we don't like it or its premise. (BTW, I didn't see it nor I intend to, which is, of course, totally beside the point.) --bonzi (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:RS for why these don't count. IMDb has been discussed frequently on WP:RSN - look in the archives. Notability requirements for films are to be found in WP:NF. Verbal chat 09:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nobody complains"? There are deletionist hordes descending on fancruft and Prodding and AfDing it into oblivion as I type! But also see WP:OTHER. If this film had *any* independent coverage in a reliable source, it might be different - but it doesn't, so by our standards this film isn't notable. This isn't about WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'd be happy to keep it if it had received significant coverage. Fences&Windows 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: no reliable third party sources = no article. If you want just synopsis + cast, then go to IMDB -- wikipedia's meant to be for "significant coverage". (See WP:IINFO) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP Equally sick of self-rightous Wikipedia policing and deletion of posts. This is obviously a legit production, and whether third-party sources are notable enough is subjective. Furthermore, this article does not violate Wikipedia's 5 pillars which state there are no official rules of governance.Aliveatoms (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the five pillars before you comment on them, the article clearly violates the very first pillar. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it does meet WP:V, but fails on WP:NF. It may pass the Pillars, but falls before the inclusion critera of guideline. When it gets some decent press, it will be welcome to return. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I haven't been able to find any significant reliable source coverage to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable outside of niche communities. Antienne (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete RS makes clear the necessity for secondary sources and this article has none, nor have other editors succeed in finding them. Note that IMDb has previously been deemed unreliable (as has WP itself because both are open to public editing). Further, this lack of secondary sources seems a fairly clear indicator of non-notability, otherwise we would find extensive reviews, commentary, etc. Doc Tropics 20:52, 21 July 2009 (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.