###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q60511072: Q60511072 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Hoax/non notable film by serial hoaxer Praxidicae ( talk ) 00:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC) "Serial hoaxer" is the same user as at Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Special:Contributions/Viapicante . If his 14000+ edits are complexly organized hoaxes which linked between each other and sometimes have interwikis, than this is something to be resolved immediately... -- Wolverène ( talk ) 05:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I am giving this a weak Keep . I spent two hours looking into this item and others created by the user, and trying to follow the various links to and links from. Everything is notable because everything is connected. And every series of connections connects to things that this particular user did not create, many of which have been around for years before this user arrived. So, we either need to re-write #3 to prevent the improper use of connections, most likely by limiting the number of non-notable items that can be linked to notable items and by limiting the amount of "jumps" that non-notable items can use to be linked to something notable (think "6 degrees of separation", we are all connected to someone). Or, we need to consider that we just met a master hoaxer that has spun a web so deep (between IMDb and Wikidata and others) that we may never be able to sort out fact from fiction. Lazypub ( talk ) 13:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure how it's existence on iMDb makes it "real" - it's literally done by Mark Shachov and Nicholas Michielini, who are nobodies creating patent hoaxes. The only occurrence of this on the internet are user generated at iMDb and garbage wiki mirrors. I was not implying the creator of the WD item was a serial hoaxer , but the person who has attempted to push this repeatedly on several platforms is. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This is literally the trailer for this "film" - it is nothing more than the dream of an over zealous child who insists on pretending like it's reality. I fundamentally disagree with keeping something because "it's just data" when it proliferates a total hoax. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I am giving this a weak Keep . I spent two hours looking into this item and others created by the user, and trying to follow the various links to and links from. Everything is notable because everything is connected. And every series of connections connects to things that this particular user did not create, many of which have been around for years before this user arrived. So, we either need to re-write #3 to prevent the improper use of connections, most likely by limiting the number of non-notable items that can be linked to notable items and by limiting the amount of "jumps" that non-notable items can use to be linked to something notable (think "6 degrees of separation", we are all connected to someone). Or, we need to consider that we just met a master hoaxer that has spun a web so deep (between IMDb and Wikidata and others) that we may never be able to sort out fact from fiction. Lazypub ( talk ) 13:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure how it's existence on iMDb makes it "real" - it's literally done by Mark Shachov and Nicholas Michielini, who are nobodies creating patent hoaxes. The only occurrence of this on the internet are user generated at iMDb and garbage wiki mirrors. I was not implying the creator of the WD item was a serial hoaxer , but the person who has attempted to push this repeatedly on several platforms is. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This is literally the trailer for this "film" - it is nothing more than the dream of an over zealous child who insists on pretending like it's reality. I fundamentally disagree with keeping something because "it's just data" when it proliferates a total hoax. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure how it's existence on iMDb makes it "real" - it's literally done by Mark Shachov and Nicholas Michielini, who are nobodies creating patent hoaxes. The only occurrence of this on the internet are user generated at iMDb and garbage wiki mirrors. I was not implying the creator of the WD item was a serial hoaxer , but the person who has attempted to push this repeatedly on several platforms is. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This is literally the trailer for this "film" - it is nothing more than the dream of an over zealous child who insists on pretending like it's reality. I fundamentally disagree with keeping something because "it's just data" when it proliferates a total hoax. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) ( edit conflict ) And it is really easy to unspin this "web" that isn't really spun (and I think the creator here unwittingly got tangled in.) Every single occurrence of this phrase on the internet shares one commonality. User generated content. [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] and everything else is an instagram mirror. If you spam anything enough to a bunch of places, it will get a knowledge graph. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I am not saying that the film stands on its own for notability. And, really, I am not even completely looking at this item on its own. I am including it as part of the larger discussion - Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Special:Contributions/Viapicante . It is linked to this item, which links to this item, which links to this item. The "existence" on IMDb, combined with things being linked to and from, is enough for the rather lax notability guidelines of WD. I don't have to agree with it, I just have to abide by it while asking that it be changed to something I do agree with. Lazypub ( talk ) I am not saying that the film stands on its own for notability. And, really, I am not even completely looking at this item on its own. I am including it as part of the larger discussion - Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Special:Contributions/Viapicante . It is linked to this item, which links to this item, which links to this item. The "existence" on IMDb, combined with things being linked to and from, is enough for the rather lax notability guidelines of WD. I don't have to agree with it, I just have to abide by it while asking that it be changed to something I do agree with. Lazypub ( talk ) Delete and could someone indef block Lazypub for lacking the necessary competence to contribute to Wikidata. Thanks. Nick ( talk ) 17:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I would think that someone with your "authority" within the foundation would be more careful with the words you use. Lazypub ( talk ) It's not my fault you're incompetent - don't shoot the messenger. If we take a look at the Wikidata notability policy , you'll see this is clearly an item which is to be deleted. There are no incoming links from other Wikimedia projects - criteria 1 is not fulfilled. The concept or entity cannot be described using serious and publicly available references (you may try to argue IMDb meets that criteria - it doesn't, it's user generated content and cannot be considered serious - for a film, I'd expect as a minimum, coverage in a industrial publication eg Variety) - criteria 2 is not fulfilled and as it's not a technical item needed for other purposes, criteria 3 is not fulfilled. Deletion is the only appropriate course of action (together with your blocking due to a lack of competence, of course). Nick ( talk ) 19:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I would think that someone with your "authority" within the foundation would be more careful with the words you use. Lazypub ( talk ) It's not my fault you're incompetent - don't shoot the messenger. If we take a look at the Wikidata notability policy , you'll see this is clearly an item which is to be deleted. There are no incoming links from other Wikimedia projects - criteria 1 is not fulfilled. The concept or entity cannot be described using serious and publicly available references (you may try to argue IMDb meets that criteria - it doesn't, it's user generated content and cannot be considered serious - for a film, I'd expect as a minimum, coverage in a industrial publication eg Variety) - criteria 2 is not fulfilled and as it's not a technical item needed for other purposes, criteria 3 is not fulfilled. Deletion is the only appropriate course of action (together with your blocking due to a lack of competence, of course). Nick ( talk ) 19:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I would think that someone with your "authority" within the foundation would be more careful with the words you use. Lazypub ( talk ) It's not my fault you're incompetent - don't shoot the messenger. If we take a look at the Wikidata notability policy , you'll see this is clearly an item which is to be deleted. There are no incoming links from other Wikimedia projects - criteria 1 is not fulfilled. The concept or entity cannot be described using serious and publicly available references (you may try to argue IMDb meets that criteria - it doesn't, it's user generated content and cannot be considered serious - for a film, I'd expect as a minimum, coverage in a industrial publication eg Variety) - criteria 2 is not fulfilled and as it's not a technical item needed for other purposes, criteria 3 is not fulfilled. Deletion is the only appropriate course of action (together with your blocking due to a lack of competence, of course). Nick ( talk ) 19:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC) It's not my fault you're incompetent - don't shoot the messenger. If we take a look at the Wikidata notability policy , you'll see this is clearly an item which is to be deleted. There are no incoming links from other Wikimedia projects - criteria 1 is not fulfilled. The concept or entity cannot be described using serious and publicly available references (you may try to argue IMDb meets that criteria - it doesn't, it's user generated content and cannot be considered serious - for a film, I'd expect as a minimum, coverage in a industrial publication eg Variety) - criteria 2 is not fulfilled and as it's not a technical item needed for other purposes, criteria 3 is not fulfilled. Deletion is the only appropriate course of action (together with your blocking due to a lack of competence, of course). Nick ( talk ) 19:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I am giving this a weak Keep . I spent two hours looking into this item and others created by the user, and trying to follow the various links to and links from. Everything is notable because everything is connected. And every series of connections connects to things that this particular user did not create, many of which have been around for years before this user arrived. So, we either need to re-write #3 to prevent the improper use of connections, most likely by limiting the number of non-notable items that can be linked to notable items and by limiting the amount of "jumps" that non-notable items can use to be linked to something notable (think "6 degrees of separation", we are all connected to someone). Or, we need to consider that we just met a master hoaxer that has spun a web so deep (between IMDb and Wikidata and others) that we may never be able to sort out fact from fiction. Lazypub ( talk ) 13:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure how it's existence on iMDb makes it "real" - it's literally done by Mark Shachov and Nicholas Michielini, who are nobodies creating patent hoaxes. The only occurrence of this on the internet are user generated at iMDb and garbage wiki mirrors. I was not implying the creator of the WD item was a serial hoaxer , but the person who has attempted to push this repeatedly on several platforms is. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This is literally the trailer for this "film" - it is nothing more than the dream of an over zealous child who insists on pretending like it's reality. I fundamentally disagree with keeping something because "it's just data" when it proliferates a total hoax. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure how it's existence on iMDb makes it "real" - it's literally done by Mark Shachov and Nicholas Michielini, who are nobodies creating patent hoaxes. The only occurrence of this on the internet are user generated at iMDb and garbage wiki mirrors. I was not implying the creator of the WD item was a serial hoaxer , but the person who has attempted to push this repeatedly on several platforms is. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This is literally the trailer for this "film" - it is nothing more than the dream of an over zealous child who insists on pretending like it's reality. I fundamentally disagree with keeping something because "it's just data" when it proliferates a total hoax. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure how it's existence on iMDb makes it "real" - it's literally done by Mark Shachov and Nicholas Michielini, who are nobodies creating patent hoaxes. The only occurrence of this on the internet are user generated at iMDb and garbage wiki mirrors. I was not implying the creator of the WD item was a serial hoaxer , but the person who has attempted to push this repeatedly on several platforms is. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This is literally the trailer for this "film" - it is nothing more than the dream of an over zealous child who insists on pretending like it's reality. I fundamentally disagree with keeping something because "it's just data" when it proliferates a total hoax. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) We could always go with the old "how do we prove anything exists". I mean, Jered Threatin recently proved how easy it is to fake existence. But instead, I am going to say that it is sourced (IMDb. Knowledge Graph. etc). But, more importantly, according to the notability guidelines, other WD Items link to it. Notability is not inherited on WP, but it is on WD. Lazypub ( talk ) By that logic, there should be a wikidata item on my cat who is running for President of the United States in 2036. She's currently 12 years old. You do the math. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I would think that someone with your "authority" within the foundation would be more careful with the words you use. Lazypub ( talk ) It's not my fault you're incompetent - don't shoot the messenger. If we take a look at the Wikidata notability policy , you'll see this is clearly an item which is to be deleted. There are no incoming links from other Wikimedia projects - criteria 1 is not fulfilled. The concept or entity cannot be described using serious and publicly available references (you may try to argue IMDb meets that criteria - it doesn't, it's user generated content and cannot be considered serious - for a film, I'd expect as a minimum, coverage in a industrial publication eg Variety) - criteria 2 is not fulfilled and as it's not a technical item needed for other purposes, criteria 3 is not fulfilled. Deletion is the only appropriate course of action (together with your blocking due to a lack of competence, of course). Nick ( talk ) 19:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I would think that someone with your "authority" within the foundation would be more careful with the words you use. Lazypub ( talk ) It's not my fault you're incompetent - don't shoot the messenger. If we take a look at the Wikidata notability policy , you'll see this is clearly an item which is to be deleted. There are no incoming links from other Wikimedia projects - criteria 1 is not fulfilled. The concept or entity cannot be described using serious and publicly available references (you may try to argue IMDb meets that criteria - it doesn't, it's user generated content and cannot be considered serious - for a film, I'd expect as a minimum, coverage in a industrial publication eg Variety) - criteria 2 is not fulfilled and as it's not a technical item needed for other purposes, criteria 3 is not fulfilled. Deletion is the only appropriate course of action (together with your blocking due to a lack of competence, of course). Nick ( talk ) 19:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I would think that someone with your "authority" within the foundation would be more careful with the words you use. Lazypub ( talk ) It's not my fault you're incompetent - don't shoot the messenger. If we take a look at the Wikidata notability policy , you'll see this is clearly an item which is to be deleted. There are no incoming links from other Wikimedia projects - criteria 1 is not fulfilled. The concept or entity cannot be described using serious and publicly available references (you may try to argue IMDb meets that criteria - it doesn't, it's user generated content and cannot be considered serious - for a film, I'd expect as a minimum, coverage in a industrial publication eg Variety) - criteria 2 is not fulfilled and as it's not a technical item needed for other purposes, criteria 3 is not fulfilled. Deletion is the only appropriate course of action (together with your blocking due to a lack of competence, of course). Nick ( talk ) 19:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I did not find this conversation organically and I admit to enough ignorance of Wikidata that I shouldn't be formally commenting in a request for deletion but This is not a case of something being notable because it's a hoax. This is not even a non-notable film. This is one person's efforts to perpetuate the existence of a non-existent film. To the extent that Wikidata is used by some small Wikis as evidence of existence, I would hope that Wikidata would take seriously its responsibilities to not perpetuate hoaxes. This is not Q1035725 and I would hope to see Wikidata respond as such. I think the argument that it meets criteria 2 is demonstrably untrue and if 3 is true, then I would love to help be part of a solution where Wikidata figures out ways to achieve its mission more responsibly because it will not achieve its vision, a vision I think that is necessary in the Wikimedia movement, otherwise. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 15:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC) If the item is a hoax, then it needs taken out. I don't think anyone is going to deny that. End of story, read no further, just delete it. But a hoax is different than a non-existent film which is different than a non-notable film. Lots of WP articles exist on "non-existent" films (and music) because they garnered enough press to gain notability - such as films that are in the "planning stage". WP even contains "list" articles for films that do not yet exist. I have a problem with advertisements made to look like legitimate coverage being used as sources that help non-existent subjects gain notability, but I don't write the rules on WP (or WD). I just have to abide by them. That's WP, this is WD. Similar, but not the same. On WP, notability is not inherited. I don't get to have an article just because I worked on a notable film. But in the case of WD, notability is inherited. Meaning, I worked on notable film, therefore I am notable. When you put that all together - In this case, you have a film which (for sake of argument) is not a hoax, but has not been released (planning stage). Very little press, and as a student film, probably will not have enough press to ever have notability even after release. However, because the film's credits include a notable person, then this film is also notable. What we need to do for this item is determine if it is a hoax, or still in the "planning stage". But, more importantly, we need to start digging in to the 500 pages created by the same user . He added many films and people involved with those films. Everything, including this item, he created meets WD notability by inheritence (they also tie into things he did not create and existed for years prior). So, it really boils down to which, if any, credits are complete hoaxes. And then we need to notify IMDb about the hoaxes on their site so that the same information does not get brought back into WD, and so that they can look into their own editor(s) involved and could possibly find even more hoax pages. But until we determine the validity of the film, I stand by my weak keep vote Lazypub ( talk ). a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I did not find this conversation organically and I admit to enough ignorance of Wikidata that I shouldn't be formally commenting in a request for deletion but This is not a case of something being notable because it's a hoax. This is not even a non-notable film. This is one person's efforts to perpetuate the existence of a non-existent film. To the extent that Wikidata is used by some small Wikis as evidence of existence, I would hope that Wikidata would take seriously its responsibilities to not perpetuate hoaxes. This is not Q1035725 and I would hope to see Wikidata respond as such. I think the argument that it meets criteria 2 is demonstrably untrue and if 3 is true, then I would love to help be part of a solution where Wikidata figures out ways to achieve its mission more responsibly because it will not achieve its vision, a vision I think that is necessary in the Wikimedia movement, otherwise. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 15:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC) If the item is a hoax, then it needs taken out. I don't think anyone is going to deny that. End of story, read no further, just delete it. But a hoax is different than a non-existent film which is different than a non-notable film. Lots of WP articles exist on "non-existent" films (and music) because they garnered enough press to gain notability - such as films that are in the "planning stage". WP even contains "list" articles for films that do not yet exist. I have a problem with advertisements made to look like legitimate coverage being used as sources that help non-existent subjects gain notability, but I don't write the rules on WP (or WD). I just have to abide by them. That's WP, this is WD. Similar, but not the same. On WP, notability is not inherited. I don't get to have an article just because I worked on a notable film. But in the case of WD, notability is inherited. Meaning, I worked on notable film, therefore I am notable. When you put that all together - In this case, you have a film which (for sake of argument) is not a hoax, but has not been released (planning stage). Very little press, and as a student film, probably will not have enough press to ever have notability even after release. However, because the film's credits include a notable person, then this film is also notable. What we need to do for this item is determine if it is a hoax, or still in the "planning stage". But, more importantly, we need to start digging in to the 500 pages created by the same user . He added many films and people involved with those films. Everything, including this item, he created meets WD notability by inheritence (they also tie into things he did not create and existed for years prior). So, it really boils down to which, if any, credits are complete hoaxes. And then we need to notify IMDb about the hoaxes on their site so that the same information does not get brought back into WD, and so that they can look into their own editor(s) involved and could possibly find even more hoax pages. But until we determine the validity of the film, I stand by my weak keep vote Lazypub ( talk ). a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) If the item is a hoax, then it needs taken out. I don't think anyone is going to deny that. End of story, read no further, just delete it. But a hoax is different than a non-existent film which is different than a non-notable film. Lots of WP articles exist on "non-existent" films (and music) because they garnered enough press to gain notability - such as films that are in the "planning stage". WP even contains "list" articles for films that do not yet exist. I have a problem with advertisements made to look like legitimate coverage being used as sources that help non-existent subjects gain notability, but I don't write the rules on WP (or WD). I just have to abide by them. That's WP, this is WD. Similar, but not the same. On WP, notability is not inherited. I don't get to have an article just because I worked on a notable film. But in the case of WD, notability is inherited. Meaning, I worked on notable film, therefore I am notable. When you put that all together - In this case, you have a film which (for sake of argument) is not a hoax, but has not been released (planning stage). Very little press, and as a student film, probably will not have enough press to ever have notability even after release. However, because the film's credits include a notable person, then this film is also notable. What we need to do for this item is determine if it is a hoax, or still in the "planning stage". But, more importantly, we need to start digging in to the 500 pages created by the same user . He added many films and people involved with those films. Everything, including this item, he created meets WD notability by inheritence (they also tie into things he did not create and existed for years prior). So, it really boils down to which, if any, credits are complete hoaxes. And then we need to notify IMDb about the hoaxes on their site so that the same information does not get brought back into WD, and so that they can look into their own editor(s) involved and could possibly find even more hoax pages. But until we determine the validity of the film, I stand by my weak keep vote Lazypub ( talk ). a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I did not find this conversation organically and I admit to enough ignorance of Wikidata that I shouldn't be formally commenting in a request for deletion but This is not a case of something being notable because it's a hoax. This is not even a non-notable film. This is one person's efforts to perpetuate the existence of a non-existent film. To the extent that Wikidata is used by some small Wikis as evidence of existence, I would hope that Wikidata would take seriously its responsibilities to not perpetuate hoaxes. This is not Q1035725 and I would hope to see Wikidata respond as such. I think the argument that it meets criteria 2 is demonstrably untrue and if 3 is true, then I would love to help be part of a solution where Wikidata figures out ways to achieve its mission more responsibly because it will not achieve its vision, a vision I think that is necessary in the Wikimedia movement, otherwise. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 15:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC) If the item is a hoax, then it needs taken out. I don't think anyone is going to deny that. End of story, read no further, just delete it. But a hoax is different than a non-existent film which is different than a non-notable film. Lots of WP articles exist on "non-existent" films (and music) because they garnered enough press to gain notability - such as films that are in the "planning stage". WP even contains "list" articles for films that do not yet exist. I have a problem with advertisements made to look like legitimate coverage being used as sources that help non-existent subjects gain notability, but I don't write the rules on WP (or WD). I just have to abide by them. That's WP, this is WD. Similar, but not the same. On WP, notability is not inherited. I don't get to have an article just because I worked on a notable film. But in the case of WD, notability is inherited. Meaning, I worked on notable film, therefore I am notable. When you put that all together - In this case, you have a film which (for sake of argument) is not a hoax, but has not been released (planning stage). Very little press, and as a student film, probably will not have enough press to ever have notability even after release. However, because the film's credits include a notable person, then this film is also notable. What we need to do for this item is determine if it is a hoax, or still in the "planning stage". But, more importantly, we need to start digging in to the 500 pages created by the same user . He added many films and people involved with those films. Everything, including this item, he created meets WD notability by inheritence (they also tie into things he did not create and existed for years prior). So, it really boils down to which, if any, credits are complete hoaxes. And then we need to notify IMDb about the hoaxes on their site so that the same information does not get brought back into WD, and so that they can look into their own editor(s) involved and could possibly find even more hoax pages. But until we determine the validity of the film, I stand by my weak keep vote Lazypub ( talk ). a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) If the item is a hoax, then it needs taken out. I don't think anyone is going to deny that. End of story, read no further, just delete it. But a hoax is different than a non-existent film which is different than a non-notable film. Lots of WP articles exist on "non-existent" films (and music) because they garnered enough press to gain notability - such as films that are in the "planning stage". WP even contains "list" articles for films that do not yet exist. I have a problem with advertisements made to look like legitimate coverage being used as sources that help non-existent subjects gain notability, but I don't write the rules on WP (or WD). I just have to abide by them. That's WP, this is WD. Similar, but not the same. On WP, notability is not inherited. I don't get to have an article just because I worked on a notable film. But in the case of WD, notability is inherited. Meaning, I worked on notable film, therefore I am notable. When you put that all together - In this case, you have a film which (for sake of argument) is not a hoax, but has not been released (planning stage). Very little press, and as a student film, probably will not have enough press to ever have notability even after release. However, because the film's credits include a notable person, then this film is also notable. What we need to do for this item is determine if it is a hoax, or still in the "planning stage". But, more importantly, we need to start digging in to the 500 pages created by the same user . He added many films and people involved with those films. Everything, including this item, he created meets WD notability by inheritence (they also tie into things he did not create and existed for years prior). So, it really boils down to which, if any, credits are complete hoaxes. And then we need to notify IMDb about the hoaxes on their site so that the same information does not get brought back into WD, and so that they can look into their own editor(s) involved and could possibly find even more hoax pages. But until we determine the validity of the film, I stand by my weak keep vote Lazypub ( talk ). a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) If the item is a hoax, then it needs taken out. I don't think anyone is going to deny that. End of story, read no further, just delete it. But a hoax is different than a non-existent film which is different than a non-notable film. Lots of WP articles exist on "non-existent" films (and music) because they garnered enough press to gain notability - such as films that are in the "planning stage". WP even contains "list" articles for films that do not yet exist. I have a problem with advertisements made to look like legitimate coverage being used as sources that help non-existent subjects gain notability, but I don't write the rules on WP (or WD). I just have to abide by them. That's WP, this is WD. Similar, but not the same. On WP, notability is not inherited. I don't get to have an article just because I worked on a notable film. But in the case of WD, notability is inherited. Meaning, I worked on notable film, therefore I am notable. When you put that all together - In this case, you have a film which (for sake of argument) is not a hoax, but has not been released (planning stage). Very little press, and as a student film, probably will not have enough press to ever have notability even after release. However, because the film's credits include a notable person, then this film is also notable. What we need to do for this item is determine if it is a hoax, or still in the "planning stage". But, more importantly, we need to start digging in to the 500 pages created by the same user . He added many films and people involved with those films. Everything, including this item, he created meets WD notability by inheritence (they also tie into things he did not create and existed for years prior). So, it really boils down to which, if any, credits are complete hoaxes. And then we need to notify IMDb about the hoaxes on their site so that the same information does not get brought back into WD, and so that they can look into their own editor(s) involved and could possibly find even more hoax pages. But until we determine the validity of the film, I stand by my weak keep vote Lazypub ( talk ). a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) a hoax is different than a non-existent film ? Lazypub Please clarify this statement. If something doesn't exist and someone is attempting to legitimize it's existence by creating patently false information on numerous platforms (which are all user generated content with no verification ) how is it not a hoax? We're not talking grand hoaxes that were widely believed, like bigfoot or what Barkeep49 linked, but something that is entirely untrue and made up, which by every project on Wikimedia's definition, is deleteable as a hoax. The integrity of this project effects every project and keeping something that no one can prove exists damages any shred of credibility an encyclopedic project has. And your statement that we should keep it until we can determine it's validity is inherently contradictory and damaging to this project and all others it touches. We shouldn't keep things until we know if they're true, we should remove them until we know that they are real and/or true. Praxidicae ( talk ) 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry if my thought wasn't clear. This WP article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_film is all about films that do not exist. That doesn't make them a hoax. They are still in the "planning stage". Lazypub ( talk ) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) So you argue above that enwp standards don't apply here and then link an enwp article? Aside from that, the flaw in your logic is that all of those films have one thing in common: they have actual production companies and aren't total BS by some bored 15 year old. Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I would love to know what an "actual" production company is. I am pretty that sure we are all aware that Apple started in someone's parent's garage, and Facebook was started in a dorm room. And Britney Spears grew up in a trailer but made more money by the time she was 16 than you will your entire life. Is Apple, Facebook, and Britney Spears any less credibl just because of their meager beginnings. By the way, I own a production company. It was a legal entity I created solely to protect another legal entity from frivolous lawsuits. It is not that hard to become an "actual" production company. It cost me $26 in the early 90s. But, the point I was making was that we have no actual proof of their existence. I am not going to rehash the whole thing. For the purpose of those 2 specific paragraphs, those films do not exist, but they are not hoaxes. Lazypub ( talk ) It might not be a hoax (though I have used that word before without regret now), but I think making something which doesn't exist appear to exist is deceptive. We should not participate in such a deceit. If it exists one day we can have a different discussion, but since we have no actual proof of its existence today, it does not seem to be in need of a Wikidata item. Barkeep49 ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) According to youtube, Oprah is the illuminati and Aaron J. Christopher is a successful musician and director. You're confusing reality with the ease and ability to make up anything you want on the internet. Praxidicae ( talk ) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Lazypub could you clarify how you know "he person who added it to IMDb is not the same person that added it to WD" please. Nick ( talk ) 17:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC) How do I "know", I don't "know", nor did I say I know. I said according to the two websites I posted that they are not the same person. However, IMO, the guy with the 15,000 edits on WD is an adult making legitimate edits related to films, and is not the scared little kid that did the YouTube video (where he openly admits to posting it to IMDb). Lazypub ( talk ) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Also to your statement that the production company exists - please provide proof because there is no such legal entity (or otherwise) named "Michielini Studios" and there isn't even so much of a shred of evidence it exists anywhere. Praxidicae ( talk ) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC) According to youtube, Oprah is the illuminati and Aaron J. Christopher is a successful musician and director. You're confusing reality with the ease and ability to make up anything you want on the internet. Praxidicae ( talk ) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Lazypub could you clarify how you know "he person who added it to IMDb is not the same person that added it to WD" please. Nick ( talk ) 17:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC) How do I "know", I don't "know", nor did I say I know. I said according to the two websites I posted that they are not the same person. However, IMO, the guy with the 15,000 edits on WD is an adult making legitimate edits related to films, and is not the scared little kid that did the YouTube video (where he openly admits to posting it to IMDb). Lazypub ( talk ) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Also to your statement that the production company exists - please provide proof because there is no such legal entity (or otherwise) named "Michielini Studios" and there isn't even so much of a shred of evidence it exists anywhere. Praxidicae ( talk ) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC) How do I "know", I don't "know", nor did I say I know. I said according to the two websites I posted that they are not the same person. However, IMO, the guy with the 15,000 edits on WD is an adult making legitimate edits related to films, and is not the scared little kid that did the YouTube video (where he openly admits to posting it to IMDb). Lazypub ( talk ) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Also to your statement that the production company exists - please provide proof because there is no such legal entity (or otherwise) named "Michielini Studios" and there isn't even so much of a shred of evidence it exists anywhere. Praxidicae ( talk ) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) According to youtube, Oprah is the illuminati and Aaron J. Christopher is a successful musician and director. You're confusing reality with the ease and ability to make up anything you want on the internet. Praxidicae ( talk ) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Lazypub could you clarify how you know "he person who added it to IMDb is not the same person that added it to WD" please. Nick ( talk ) 17:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC) How do I "know", I don't "know", nor did I say I know. I said according to the two websites I posted that they are not the same person. However, IMO, the guy with the 15,000 edits on WD is an adult making legitimate edits related to films, and is not the scared little kid that did the YouTube video (where he openly admits to posting it to IMDb). Lazypub ( talk ) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Also to your statement that the production company exists - please provide proof because there is no such legal entity (or otherwise) named "Michielini Studios" and there isn't even so much of a shred of evidence it exists anywhere. Praxidicae ( talk ) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC) How do I "know", I don't "know", nor did I say I know. I said according to the two websites I posted that they are not the same person. However, IMO, the guy with the 15,000 edits on WD is an adult making legitimate edits related to films, and is not the scared little kid that did the YouTube video (where he openly admits to posting it to IMDb). Lazypub ( talk ) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Also to your statement that the production company exists - please provide proof because there is no such legal entity (or otherwise) named "Michielini Studios" and there isn't even so much of a shred of evidence it exists anywhere. Praxidicae ( talk ) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) How do I "know", I don't "know", nor did I say I know. I said according to the two websites I posted that they are not the same person. However, IMO, the guy with the 15,000 edits on WD is an adult making legitimate edits related to films, and is not the scared little kid that did the YouTube video (where he openly admits to posting it to IMDb). Lazypub ( talk ) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Also to your statement that the production company exists - please provide proof because there is no such legal entity (or otherwise) named "Michielini Studios" and there isn't even so much of a shred of evidence it exists anywhere. Praxidicae ( talk ) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring the point being made or just not getting it - no one cares who created it here at this point. It doesn't matter. It does, however, matter that this specific entry is based on the imagination of two kids who have tried to promote something that does not actually exist. Whether the creator was gullible and believed some nonsense on user generated sites (wikia, imdb) and created it with good intention or not is ultimately irrelevant as we're here to discuss the subject matter. Think of it as if I were to post a fan made video of a couple on a TV show I adored when I was 16 years old and long after the show ended, I created an entry on Wikipedia, Wikidata, etc... about it, promoted it as a legitimate film/episode. It's not real and it's not within the scope of any Wikimedia project. Why are you so insistent on keeping something that literally cannot be proven to exist by any moderately reliable source? Praxidicae ( talk ) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Delete A hoax is just a hoax, that's not "a film". -- Liuxinyu970226 ( talk ) 13:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)