Hello, Susanmac50, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Michael McDerman, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
Has no visible footnotes with verifiable references from reliable sources. Authors appear to be identically unwilling to work collaboratively and incapable of following WP:REFB.. Notability unclear.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Me, Matthew! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Hi! I know that my post at the AfD was long, so I thought that I'd come and explain things in a bit more depth. The long and short of sourcing is that ultimately the source has to be in-depth, independent, and reliable. By this I mean the following:
The source cannot be WP:PRIMARY, meaning that it's released by someone involved with the film or otherwise affiliated with it. This includes articles that are reprints of press releases or heavily based on PR.
It must be in-depth, which means that brief 1-2 line blurbs will not count. Those would be seen as WP:TRIVIAL sources that cannot show notability. Routine notifications of events cannot show notability either for various reasons, one of which is that they're routine but also because they're usually based on press releases. Now occasionally something can be a RS if it's a notification, if the subject in question is written about in depth.
The source has to be reliable. This is usually what stands in the way of many films as many films tend to get solidly overlooked by reliable sources. Short films especially, unfortunately. In many cases films will only gain coverage from blogs, which are considered to be self-published sources in most instances. In the case of IMM, there was a review in a user-submitted content portion of a website that would otherwise be considered reliable. User-submitted content is almost never usable for the reasons I posted in the AfD.
The main thing we need to do right now is verify the sources not on the Internet. While they don't have to be posted on the Internet to be reliable, we do need to be able to verify them. As stated at the AfD, these sources could be usable but we need to see how in-depth they are before we can really say anything one way or another. The best option is to post them on the film website with the basic info visible (newspaper, date, etc).
On a side note, I would recommend caution with your press page on the website. This has no bearing on the AfD, just something that crossed my mind in general. While I don't think that you meant it to come across this way and it's clearly not meant to be a review in the NYP, the way the quote is placed on the press page gives off the impression that it is a review. It'd likely be better to give a screenshot of the quote and insert a link to the article. Also, make sure that you specify that the review from CWB came from their blog, as the blog is an entirely different beast than the main website. It's kind of the difference between saying that someone received coverage from CNN and iCNN. While technically it's the same company, the gist of the coverage is dramatically different. This is just my two cents and it has no bearing at the AfD, it's just something from an editorial perspective.
Now if I can recommend something, I'd highly recommend seeing if you can get Jesse Archer to write an article about the short for Out! Magazine. They're absolutely considered a reliable source on here and a review from that website would go a long, long way. I know that it's rarely as easy as just asking, but you might want to approach some of the other LGBT websites and plead for a review as well. The Advocate is a RS on here, as is The Stranger. These might take a while, but if the other sources are considered to be unusable then you can always ask to have this userfied so you can slowly try to build up sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)07:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, giving you some feedback here - can you upload an image of the magazine and newspaper reviews? If you do and if they're as good as the Luso Americano article, this should be enough to establish NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)09:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate the advise and feedback and will pass it along. I believe the reason they have kept articles off the site is to give the site a clean and crisp view, but I will mention your suggestions. As to the Herald Sun, it was in print back in 2008, It was added by the Herald Sun to our IMDB page, but we never got a actual copy of it. That had it online for a while and don't I don't know if maybe I can contact them and get it from archives as the dates and author are correct. I will try to contact them Monday and see if I can get them to send me a copy. It was added by them h to our IMDB page, but I will ask to see if they have one they can send us. Also, I will look for the Michael Musto review in HX magazine and send it to you.via email. Is there an email I can send it to? to expedite this.? Thanks for the advise on the extra PR. at this time we are more focused on a European release. Thanks again for your help. In the meantime, while I am working on getting you those files, will the page stay up? I would hate to start to work on it from scratch as it took me several hours to put it together. I am going to try to get you the herald sun and HX as soon as possible.
I know this may not help, but this was another clip from HX Magazine. [1] Thanks again, Susan
While going through my computer files I found these two additional clippings about the private screening in June 2008. Published in Next magazine June 13, 2008, page 7 issue # 15.50 top discusses private screening of It's Me, Matthew. PUBLISHED IN HX MAGAZINE JUNE 20, 2008 PAGE 18 [2]
Also, this was another one in HX I just found with a picture that is my copyright
I got your email and replied. I look forward to seeing the clippings. If you write to me other than in email or on my user talk page, please do me the courtesy of pinging me. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ(talk)06:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder has already contacted administration at WP and followed the instruction in consenting about the image. Furthermore, on top of that they will be adding a note on the site you claim, its stolen from that is not a violation of copyright.
Hello, Susanmac50. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
or 
) located above the edit window.
