`  * I see your article has been declined several times now. I think there's some misunderstanding about what we mean by a ``reliable source`` on Wikipedia. ``Reliable`` in our context means that somebody has a professional reputation to state things correctly and trustworthy. For instance, a newspaper cannot print whatever it likes - it needs to have tight editorial control (as Rebekah Brooks found out the hard way, for example). So you can rely on what it says to be held to a known standard. : You and your own websites, on the other hand, can say pretty much anything you like, and that's why they're unreliable, because there's no code of practice or conduct stopping you writing ``Sean Coyne is the greatest filmmaker in all of history, bar none`` and using it as a source for a Wikipedia article. I think Steven Spielberg (to pick a name completely at random) might disagree with you on that! : So that's why we don't allow stuff you've written yourself, or appears on sites pretty much anyone can contribute to like Facebook. I'm afraid to say your article probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia - maybe in 20 years you might be as famous as Steven Spielberg and this film will gather historical interest, but until then I'm afraid it's just not notable. Sorry.     `