Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project

message: I went through your guidelines word for word:  My article isn't propaganda, it's not just MY point of view on the film--in fact it offers no POV's just the trivial facts--and the importance of it is that it is the first and so far the ONLY film to deal with the subject of secession, to be filmed in the chamber of the senate armed services committee, and to acheive success merely out of its subject matter.  I have two more films I'd like to write about, but not until this particular matter is cleared up.
EZZIE 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Read the Guidelines

message: *Filming took place between July 2005 and October 2005.
*Congressman Henry Hyde makes a cameo as himself in the film.
*The only film to have scenes in the Chamber of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
*New York City shoot was achieved without filming permits.
*Actor Jack Moran walked out onto the ledge of a Lexington Avenue Highrise so that the cast and crew could get into an office space for filming.
*The Central Park Conservancy is the only New York City organization to cooperate with this film production.
*The Capitol Hill Police participated in making the filming in Washington, DC easier.
*A United States Secret Service agent stationed outside of the White House during filming had tipped off the crew to when the Presidential Motorcade would be coming down Pennsylvania Avenue.  The filmmakers set up their equipment outside of the East Gates and filmed John Tully standing before George Bush's motorcade.  This is in the blooper reel at [YOUTUBE]
*The scene with Henry Hyde was improvised in Hyde's DC Office.
*There is a cut scene available on [YOUTUBE] with actor John Tully walking down the famous steps from The Exorcist.
EZZIE 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: As an entertainment retail operator in New York I am familiar with this and can assure you of its prominence.
:Comment None of the above has any bearing on the question of notability. How many people have ever seen this movie? How many have even heard of it? Is it being distributed? Is it being shown commercially? Has it been reviewed in any major national media? There's no indication that any of those things have happened. (By the way, Youtube and Myspace are generally not considered notability, as any teenager with a modem can post there.) Fan1967 04:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is shorthand for verifiability. I suggest you read the article on bias. You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means. What's more, I gave a call to some friends in Queens, North Merrick and Babylon. They don't know about this movie either.  RasputinAXP  c  14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure there's notability coming. WP:GIRLFRIEND.  RasputinAXP  c  04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Familiar WIth This

message: I noticed someone put a new tag on the top of this page--so just because a couple of users have placed a KEEP vote, you automatically assume that they aren't REAL Wikipedia users?  Definatley an alpha-level conspiracy. EZZIE 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Tag On THis Page

message: [PLEASE VIEW THIS LINK] Unless you don't want to be proved wrong. EZZIE 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, a forum that got 10 posts in late January and hasn't been touched since. That's significant. Fan1967 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All User And Administrators

message: Please note that the article has been updated. EZZIE 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you think you were accomplishing something by nominating Kangaroo Jack for deletion? You didn't even manage to create the deletion article properly, and it will go nowhere. Kangaroo Jack was a dreadful movie, but it was released, and seen by a lot of unfortunate people in theatres. Quality is not a Wikipedia criterion. Notability is. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - Fan1967 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Kangaroo Jack AfD tag because of the improper execution of the AfD process.  I don't care if he does it properly.  It can stay in that case.  I have no doubts as to what the result will be.  --Strothra 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What evidence do you have to say it's NOT a comedy?  You haven't seen it.  Just because it doesn't SEEM like comedy you remove the stub?  Look at IMDB dude--you're so good at investigating reasons for deletion and flaming me out--but where's the effort in researching the details to keep the article?  EZZIE 20:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  No one has seen the movie thus is cannot yet be categorized.  If you would like to categorize it as a comedy then please cite IMDB in the article. The burden of proof is on YOU to keep the article.  The AfD is a discussion on the merits of the article as it is in Wikipedia regardless of outside sources.  If you update the article accordingly and provide the proper citations to back up claims then those will be taken into consideration.  The bottom line, however, is that the movie has not been released yet and thus its notability cannot be established.  This factor will most likely cause your article's deletion because there is no amount of editing you can do to make up for that fact.  Please also note that the only individual responsible for flaming at any point in this process is yourself.  --Strothra 20:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated

message: I've been monitoring several AFD's on Wikipedia and this is one of them, I noticed RasputinAXP put it into the speedy catagory, another user took it out of the speedy catagory, then he put it back into the speedy catagory... not to mention the writer's contributions have all been deleted, reverted, or red-flagged.  There's some serious implications happening here and I would very much like it explained to me. Almost Famous 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no controversy.  All the "speedy delete" tag does is place an alert essentially saying "an administrator should look at this and see if it meets the criteria for speedy deletion".  If an administrator decides it does, then they can delete it immediately.  By removing the tag, an editor is saying "I do not feel that this article meets the criteria for immediate deletion."  This has nothing to do with this AfD. Gamaliel 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, thanks Gamaliel. Almost Famous 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What implications were you accusing us of, anyway?  RasputinAXP  c  18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Long Island discussion plays off like a pack of wolves on a single prey, I've viewed a lot of AFD discussions before, but nothing like this.  Not that I'm stepping up for the guy, I don't know him and he has no history (except those couple of articles and some edits on the NYC articles.)  Forget about it... Almost Famous 19:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well he also refused to engage in civil discussion not to mention his repeated threats and personal attacks against several people involved in the discussion. --Strothra 20:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, when all's said and done, the primary problem is that the movie's never had any sort of release. It's been shown at a few small indy film festivals, but there's no general distribution. Practically nobody's seen it. Fan1967 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Precisely.  It's no longer a heated argument.  I still think it should be speedily deleted. --Strothra 02:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You hadn't noticed? It's gone. Fan1967 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why The Controversy?