Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Groove

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. clear consensus after relistings DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Groove

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this via the associated AfD for Francois Garcia. To put it frankly, this article is a mess of promotional puffery and original research.

Normally I'd redirect things of this nature but what's concerning is that there's actually very little out there to confirm that this movie is even real. The article claims that this was released in 2007... but I can't see where it's sold anywhere and the official blog says that the film will likely never release. This isn't really encouraging, considering that the blog links to the producer/writer's YT account, which is filled with fairly random stuff that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual movie.

I'm arguing for the article to be WP:TNT'd, since this would require a complete and total re-write to become neutral. There's also the problem that we can't actually guarantee that any of the stuff in this article is legit, given that the film has never released. This is especially problematic when you consider that the article is claiming stuff about a studio break-in and essentially says that Haim remained on drugs throughout the entire filming process. I'm aware that Haim is dead, but this is a pretty contentious claim considering that there's zero coverage in RS to back this up. That's why I'd say that this should be deleted without the history - this is the type of thing that families can get sue happy over. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. What matters is that these are unsourced allegations about some pretty serious matters that, if Haim were still alive, would solidly violate WP:BLP.

There's really nothing out there even if we count in the primary sources and things in places Wikipedia would consider to be unreliable. Most of it is actually just junk hits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now if the film comes out this can be re-created but without the puffery or unsourced claims unless said claims have been widely reported on in independent and reliable sources. I'm actually halfway tempted to nominate this as a G11 speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the article states that the film was released direct-to-video in 2007 — which is a class of film that is very commonly somewhere between difficult and completely impossible to reliably source, so the sourceability problem isn't as mystifying as it might seem. But that's not an excuse for any of this: our inclusion criteria for films do not grant every film that's ever been made at all an automatic inclusion freebie just because it exists — rather, if we can't properly source that the film is notable for some specific reason, then it just doesn't get to have a Wikipedia article. But on a ProQuest search, I found just two glancing namechecks of this film's existence in coverage of Haim's late-2000s comeback effort, and nothing that would count toward notability. And Tokyogirl is entirely correct, as well, that just because Corey Haim is dead does not give us free rein to publish unsourced claims that he spent the whole film shoot strung out on drugs. The fact that we have a special policy governing the inclusion of unverifiable or contentious information in BLPs does not mean that we're suddenly permitted to publish potentially libellous unsourced claims about a BDP — it's a claim that cannot be in a Wikipedia article without proper sourcing for it regardless of whether the subject is living or dead. And after reviewing Haim's main biography to see if it contributes any sourcing that could salvage this, what I see is a (deadlinked) press release from its own production company and a (deadlinked) article from the Montreal Mirror which is about him rather than the film per se — and nothing at all that would aid in supporting the drug use claims. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The overall impression I got from the blog is that the film was supposed to release in 2007, but no release actually occurred. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself has horrendous problems as is, and there's no reasonable assertion of notability. From doing a bit of searching, I don't find anything to indicate that this film project has ever picked up (or, likely, will ever pick up) the kind of reliable source coverage needed to justify its own page. I agree completely. This really should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Beyond the problems within the article itself, upon a quick online search I have not found enough sources to support notability.Star Islington (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2016 (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.