Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film: Difference between revisions
m Archiving closed debates |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdi Corrente Productions}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdi Corrente Productions}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nino Live}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nino Live}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Gilpin }} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Death I Dreamed Of (2010 film)||}} |
|||
==Categories== |
==Categories== |
Revision as of 11:45, 23 June 2010
Deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should no longer be listed on this page. Please list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers instead. |
Points of interest related to Film on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Style – To-do |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Film. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Purge page cache | watch |
- Related deletion sorting
- Actors and filmmakers; Anime and manga; Comics and animation; Fictional characters; Television
{{{linktext}}}
|
{{{linktext}}}
|
{{{linktext}}}
|
|}
Film
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. While there is a rumor about a sequel, nothing can be verified by reliable sources at this time. Dreadstar ☥ 04:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dragonball 2: Reborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've not been able to find any announcements that the film and what information I could find was either rumors or speculation from blogs and forum posts. Completely fails WP:V and is possibility a hoax. The original article was a copy and paste of Dragonball Evolution, which I've removed along with unsourced information about casting before nominating this article. (WP:BLP) —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per above, as pointed out in the original prod There are no reliable sources to prove production or filming of this film. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete As unconfirmed rumor/hoax. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to note that dragonballrebornmovie.com is currently registered to a cyper-squatter.[1] On the other hand dragonballreborn.com doesn't appear to be registered. If the film is in production, than FOX would have acquired one of these domans by now. —Farix (t | c) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So speedy delete this as a hoax? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very real rumor that's been floating around the internet since before the first film was released. So I don't know if the article would qualify for speedy deletion. —Farix (t | c) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrote the lead so that much is verifiable. —Farix (t | c) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - this article is seriously a hoax, doesn't have any sources per WP:V and Wikipedia is not a rumour mill or a crystal ball for that matter. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the rumor gets more steam and reportage, then maybe then, but the guideline says not until production has confirmed to have started. For now, things aren't there yet: delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources to prove filming has begun or that the film is even in development. - kollision (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Someone copied information from the Dragonball Evolution article. The links to reviews are for Evolution. Dream Focus 20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable sources to suggest filming has begun. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Cut and paste move fixed, article is now at what IMDb gives as the title, and two AfD's consolidated. One comment was on the other one, which is as follows:
- Looks like someone began the AfD for this article but never actually finished it. Anyway, I'll have to go with weak incubation because although there seems to be a lot of sources about this movie being in development, they're all forums. In addition, the IMDb page doesn't even have a cast listing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly disapprove of the move of the article and AfD to "Dragonball 2: Reborn" as there is no official title and "Dragonball: 2 Reborn" is/was the original name of the article up for deletion. The IMDB listing is apparently part of the ongoing hoax/rumor. Also, the list was completed, as shown by this edit. Apparently, someone must have removed it from the day's log. —Farix (t | c) 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, rumour/hoax. Forum posts are so far from being reliable sources that I would even oppose incubation or userification on this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 01:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- European Gay Porn Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed for deletion with the reason "Short-lived and apparently defunct only poll, not notable, no significant GNews hits, coverage appears restricted to self-published blogs." Brought here for wider discussion because of possible relevance for actor biographies in that area. Tikiwont (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per my original PROD (which should have read "online poll," not "only poll"). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it has some sourcing available from AVN [2], and XBIZ [3]. I'm not sure it warrants a keep, but Hullabaloo apparently not even looking is problematic. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another flimsy pony theory. Most of the contents of the AVN and XBIZ sites is sourced directly from press releases and similar promo material, and fails WP:RS. If you're not going to bother to check for reliable sources yourself, don't make groundless accusations against those of us who actually do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both AVN and XBIZ pass WP:RS, and have factored into numerous AfD. You've taken part in enough of them to be aware of this, and your apparent failure to even look at either site is problematic. Less so than following it with yet another personal attack. This is the second position this week where you maintained that all previous AfD were wrong based on your latest whim of interpretation. If the topic makes you incapable of respecting previous consensus, or acting civilly, then you shouldn't participate in porn related Afd.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is policy and cannot be varied by local consensus. There's no denying that both sites publish press releases and other publicity material which fail the GNG requirement for independent sourcing. The fact that you don't like these standards isn't a valid excuse for your making groundless and invalid personal attacks on editors who follow them. The relevant provisions of the GNG are quite specific, excluding "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Since you resort to uncivil personal attacks rather than applying undisputed policy and guideline requirements, you're the one who shouldn't be participating in these AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What specifically are you claiming are "groundless and invalid personal attacks on editors"? For that matter, why are you referring to yourself in the plural? I'm aware that WP:V is a policy. I've never claimed that it wasn't. Nor have I claimed that press releases counted towards notability. The articles on the two sites are a different matter. The applicable project has reviewed them, and came to the conclusion the staff written articles are a reliable source. That this has been accepted at dozens of Afd discussions means that we can safely view it as a widely held view. You disagree with the interpretation, good for you. However, that doesn't mean that every editor who disagrees with you is disregarding or ignorant of policy. It certainly isn't changing the "policy by local consensus." Horrorshowj (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "applicable project also reviewed AInews.com and declared it to be a reliable source, even though it seems to do nothing but republish press releases. Nonindependent sources aren't enough to establish notability under the GNG, no matter what contrary local consensus may be reached at an individual Wikiproject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What specifically are you claiming are "groundless and invalid personal attacks on editors"? For that matter, why are you referring to yourself in the plural? I'm aware that WP:V is a policy. I've never claimed that it wasn't. Nor have I claimed that press releases counted towards notability. The articles on the two sites are a different matter. The applicable project has reviewed them, and came to the conclusion the staff written articles are a reliable source. That this has been accepted at dozens of Afd discussions means that we can safely view it as a widely held view. You disagree with the interpretation, good for you. However, that doesn't mean that every editor who disagrees with you is disregarding or ignorant of policy. It certainly isn't changing the "policy by local consensus." Horrorshowj (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V is policy and cannot be varied by local consensus. There's no denying that both sites publish press releases and other publicity material which fail the GNG requirement for independent sourcing. The fact that you don't like these standards isn't a valid excuse for your making groundless and invalid personal attacks on editors who follow them. The relevant provisions of the GNG are quite specific, excluding "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Since you resort to uncivil personal attacks rather than applying undisputed policy and guideline requirements, you're the one who shouldn't be participating in these AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both AVN and XBIZ pass WP:RS, and have factored into numerous AfD. You've taken part in enough of them to be aware of this, and your apparent failure to even look at either site is problematic. Less so than following it with yet another personal attack. This is the second position this week where you maintained that all previous AfD were wrong based on your latest whim of interpretation. If the topic makes you incapable of respecting previous consensus, or acting civilly, then you shouldn't participate in porn related Afd.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another flimsy pony theory. Most of the contents of the AVN and XBIZ sites is sourced directly from press releases and similar promo material, and fails WP:RS. If you're not going to bother to check for reliable sources yourself, don't make groundless accusations against those of us who actually do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, fails GNG. DiiCinta (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nom appears to be correct. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the consensus above. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A short-lived porn-industry marketting device.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mystery White Boy (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the notability criteria for future films: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." According to the article, there's no script, no director and no cast. No sources for the Production section either. Only citation doesn't really prove notability either. kollision (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF. Barebones database entries are not significant or reliable coverage for future films.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —kollision (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice toward recreation as simply TOO SOON at this time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Until there are sources this clearly cannot survive in mainspace. If someone wants to host this in their userspace until then, fine. But who should I userfy it too? Answers on my talkpage please.... Spartaz Humbug! 05:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Batman film (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Fails WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable sources, 2 IMDb, 1 IMDb subsidiary, 1 blog/fan site. Didn't find any reliable sources in GHits, although I might have missed one among all the blogs, non-reliable sources, etc. GregJackP (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Talk:Batman 3 (2012)#Keep?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The article has been moved around all over the place and is now at Batman film (2012). Fences&Windows 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it is not going to be called "Batman 3", even Batman Forever isn't called Batman 3. The information (as little as it is) can be kept at the future section of the franchise page until a released date is fixed. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, the final title is not going to be "Batman 3", which is basically a tentative working title (like "Bond 23"). But actually, Warner Bros. officially set July 20, 2012, as the release date this past April. Now, principal photography hasn't started yet, and it's not supposed to until March next year, but having read the comments at Talk:Batman 3 (2012)#Keep?, it seems that the issue is really more like whether or not there's enough info about the project to WP:IAR and make an exception by spinning off what's in the future section of the franchise page. While this may end up happening ("Batman 3" getting its own article before filming starts), I think that we should at least wait until we know more about casting. Cliff smith talk 20:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy, Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can support userfying the article. GregJackP (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it might be worth incubating, or userfying. Rather similar, those two, but yes, not a bad idea. I could go for that. Cliff smith talk 04:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support incubation too. GregJackP (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, well, I don't mind starting the incubation. As for this title here ("Batman 3 (2012)"), we could either redirect it to Batman in film#Third film (2012) or delete it. I don't know if it would make much of a difference either way; I don't know if it's the most likely search term. Cliff smith talk 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, if there's somewhere else that it might be redirected to that would work also, then that would be okay. Batman 3 is a disambiguation, BTW, for those who didn't already know. Should the incubation, then, start as "Batman 3 (2012)"? Cliff smith talk 16:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Batman 3 (Nolan) is a redirect to somewhere else... 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It goes to the section at Batman in film about the upcoming third film (it was just targeting a former title of that section; I corrected it). And I don't know how likely a search term that is either, but anyway I was just wondering what the incubation title should be. I'm just going to go with "Batman 3 (2012)". It can be changed, after all, once the actual title is confirmed. Cliff smith talk 19:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — (userfy) —mono 17:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy, -5- (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Until filming/production starts - Paulley (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to closing admin: Please evaluate the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman film (2012) which discusses the same article. Cunard (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Wars Revisited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fan edit film, doesn't seem notable enough. Except for one brief newspaper article, all other sources are fan edit forums. Google search just turns up blogs and forums. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Star Wars A New Hope Revisited falls under the same guidelines of The Phantom Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_Edit. If you actually seen this version of Star Wars you'd understand how important it is regardless of being a fan edit and it should be recorded for posterity. —Preceding JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— JediTenken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As per other evidence of notability: 1. The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, etc. Star Wars Revisited is an extremely advanced amateur edit of one of the most popular feature films ever made. It's notable of its own accord, as a milestone of amateur film editing, regardless of it's source material. Article should be preserved.Usa1936 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Usa1936 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adywan and Star Wars Revisited was also featured in the movie *The People vs George Lucasand the director spoke about Adywans work in this *Interviewwhich also gives an example of this edit. This article should not be deleted Vizualeyez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC). — Vizualeyez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Weak Keep One reliable reference, and i09.com seems credibly independent and a professional outfit. If kept, the waffly, unreferenced and unreliably-referenced material could be removed; to a stub if necessary. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep despite the SPA interest. As Baffle notes, the film is receiving coverage. Yes, article will require cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Phantom Edit was covered by several mainstream media outlets and the best this one can muster is a blog, which doesn't count as a reliable source. There are many fan edits of Star Wars, and this one is no more notable than any other one. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:FYI, the principle reference is from a US local newspaper The Meridian Star.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:So it relies heavily on a local newspaper. The Phantom Edit had coverage on a national scale from several major media outlets. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The mere fact that this edit exists is worth of noting in cinematic history as an amazing accomplishment. Furthermore the reason why the Phantom edit was covered so widely was the it was distributed around studios in hollywood thus making it "mainstream". It was looking for attention... However, for the most part, Adywan's Revisited has been mainly word to mouth between fans and doesn't seek attention in such a self-serving way. Revisited has been very much for the fans, edited by a fan, and greatly fan appreciated:
ANH Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85531634143&ref=ts ESB Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=316830255423&ref=ts ROTJ Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=191796765221&ref=ts The Revisited Series Fan page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Adywans-Star-Wars-Revisited-Series/298232097264?ref=ts Delete it or not, regardless Revisited is out there and it's already apart of history. JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Yes. And the same can be said for many edits on the Fan Edits website. I'm sure that a significant amount of effort went into creating this edit and others. That doesn't mean they are all of worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:But where other fanedits, including The Phantom Edit, just remove or rearrange existing footage in a movie, the Revisited edit(s) took fan edits to a whole new level by creating new effects and enhancing the movies visuals, which no other fan edit had done before in this way. It took the world of fan editing to a whole new level and therefore it is an important entry and should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizualeyez (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:It is very true many effects shots were enhance or replaced entirely. The audio was also enhanced further and remixed. Errors in continuity via audio and visual were fixed along with additions from the original Star Wars Radio drama was used in key places. New scenes were added without breaking the flow of the film and very much done with ILM like precision. Here's a picture list of comparisons from ANH Revisited:
http://picasaweb.google.com/doubleofive/ANHRVisualComparison#. This is no mere fan edit, it is very much unique and sets a new precedent for fan edits everywhere. So it can't really be said tht Revisited is in the same catagory as other fan edit.
- Delete as the nominator. I was holding off to see if anyone else was able to find more sourcing (I wasn't). This just isn't notable now. I understand the SPA's insistence that the edit is notable for creative reasons, but there are hundreds of Star Wars fan films out there. Phantom Edit drew some major attention from reliable secondary sources. This one hasn't. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If that's the case then Adywan himself belongs under these guidline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARTIST#Creative_professionals if not Star Wars Revisited as a stand alone achievement in cinematic art. Suggest deletion here which is fine however, the main point is that there are thousands of different people that know about him and his edit and appreciate it regardless of how "mainstream" it's been and that number increases. Especially with Empire Strikes Back Revisited scheduled to be released in 2011.JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see anything in that link that applies here. If you feel the creator is notable, feel free to create a Wikipedia page for him. Dayewalker (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This edit is receiving coverage and another reliable secondary source reference to Adywan's edit has been added from a reputable magazine PC WORLD. The Phantom Edit only gained attention due to the distribution around Hollywood studios whereas this edit has gained major attention purely from word of mouth. To delete this entry would be wrong. But i agree that the article does need cleaning up a little Vizualeyez (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Star Wars Revisited and/or Adywan have been noted in:
- a U.S. local newspaper, The Meridian Star
- the documentary film The People v. George Lucas
- an independent, professional blog website io9.com (itself with a Wikipedia article)
- the international magazine PC World
Does that not suffice for it's inclusion in Wikipedia? IssueLips (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - References in third-party sources are fleeting; product has not garnered significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus (which defaults to keep). Even if I completely disregarded all commentary from all single-purpose accounts (and similarly those with arguments to avoid), I am not seeing any rough consensus for deletion purely amongst registered and established users. –MuZemike 01:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Pioneer One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no evidence of notability. The article cites no sources except for a site where the film is available for download. Web searches have likewise produced a few download sites, facebook, linkedin, a forum post etc, but nothing that could be regarded as a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really want to delete it please watch it yourself first before deleting —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Staal (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to comment that simply watching a certain film does not make it notable, although I'd probably wait a little bit before nominating it for deletion before it even has a chance. Tavix | Talk 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Seen multiple mentions of it on the web - piratebay.org, slashdot (on their newsletter too), Downloadsquad. It's the first of it's kind, and I actually came to wikipedia to read what it's about. I'm sure there's more like me who want some neutral reference page as-to what this show is. --24.36.97.44 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: When I search the web I find several articles about it. Plus, the principle of torrent-based distribution is some kind of a "premiere" for a TV serie, and this is IMO a sufficient reason for a wiki article... Bornerdogge (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Bornerdogge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep: This is the first movie made for distribution over torrents. This is notable in itself. A previous artist, The Future Sounds of London, did a similar notable project when they released their ISDN album over ISDN (rather than via CD). [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.166.192 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First TV show released over BitTorrent, not first movie. The first movie released entirely over BitTorrent would probably be The Lionshare. 24.247.162.139 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It's laudable and interesting to have a torrent-based tv show, but it doesn't seem to have racked up much public interest, so until it does, I'd say delete. The individual artistic merits of the show should be irrelevent to Wikipedia policy, only it's cultural impact is important. Otherwise Wikipedia is being used as an advertising medium for generating interest where there currently isn't any. Gymnophoria (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to say that I created this article only after watching the show. I am not affiliated with the project. Also, you can not prevent Wikipedia generating interest for the subjects of its articles. And I don't see why you have this strict rule anyways. According to this logic you would delete Van Gogh's entry if he lived today.General Staal (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As a fan of the project (haven't watched it yet, but am currently downloading it), I do think it's notable in that it's the first TV series released purely through Bittorrent channels (that I can find, at least). But I recognize that it hasn't had much attention outside of the Bittorrent community (Torrentfreak, VODO, etc.) and no one knows yet how well it will be received, so I'm not sure if its "historical moment" notability is enough to keep it. (former Wikipedian here, so I know the policies) But I'm leaning more toward keep. I did a little work on the article and tried to find some more references/links, if that's any help. 24.247.162.139 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changing to Keep: after reading some of the arguments here, as well as seeing the continued and growing response to it this morning, I'm changing to keep. At this point, I definitely think the article has been adequately sourced to keep it. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further clarification, and a request that everyone stop saying "Keep because I like it", because that is a worthless argument on Wikipedia: I've just been looking at the page as it was when it was nominated, and the page as it is now. It's definitely come a long way from one rather poor reference and a synopsis ripped from the official site to a more in-depth article with eight references. At this point, I don't think the question is whether or not it's verifiable or adequately sourced, it's about whether it's WP:NN. So two things: first of all, all the single-purpose accounts here need to realize that this is not about whether or not the show is good. Second, I think we can dispense with the lingering questions of verifiability. Pioneer One exists, lots of people downloaded it, and lots of people liked it. The only question I see remaining is, is that enough for notability? I believe it is. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep: after reading some of the arguments here, as well as seeing the continued and growing response to it this morning, I'm changing to keep. At this point, I definitely think the article has been adequately sourced to keep it. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question: (from 24.247.162.139; I finally gave up and just made an account per WP:CLEANSTART. If I'm going to keep editing like I am, I might as well have an account...) I don't remember this ever coming up before, but is TorrentFreak considered a reliable source? Pioneer One has been mentioned extensively there. It's also been promoted by VODO, which although releasing the pilot, isn't actually connected to the creation of Pioneer One. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It is now available for direct download and streaming on several sites (the sites are listed on SideReel.com), and while I had already heard of the title, the ONLY place I could find any useful information about the project itself was on Wikipedia. Also, the first two minutes of the film is a promo encouraging the creation of similar projects for free distribution (via the competition on mofilm.com), in case that is a good reason to keep it listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.152.143 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not necessarily reason enough to keep the article, though. Wikipedia's not for promotion of anything, even good things like freely distributed projects, and it's not supposed to be the only source of anything. It's an encyclopedia and thus a tertiary source, meaning it relies purely on outside information, not a secondary source that reports on something. We need to find more outside sources talking about Pioneer One for the article to be adequately sourced. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if deleted redirect to the spaceprobe Pioneer 1 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I saw this film mentioned elsewhere and then immediately went to Wikipedia to look it up (as I do whenever I hear about about a film that sounds interesting). I don't see how this is any different to Wikipedia having entries for mainstream studio films before they have actually been released and become culturally important. The only difference is that there is an established promotional infrastructure which can be exploited by mainstream studios to make sure any film they release is 'notable'. I would say that the novel distribution method and connected aims (first 'TV show' distributed via BitTorrent) make it notable by definition. Dr.Jamf (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Dr.Jamf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep: At the very least give it some time for mainstream media to pick up the story. I think this is a fairly notable source: examiner.com/x-36170-Binghamton-Frugal-Living-Examiner~y2010m6d16-Free-television-Download-the-Pioneer-One-pilot-from-VODO. Also, I'm willing to bet there are other shows on Wikipedia with less than 450,000 viewers that are considered notable. Spikeman (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:It's a little outrageous to submit this article for deletion on grounds it lacks "sufficient public interest in the show" the very same day the article is created and literally days after the show was released. Maybe in a few months it could have been legitimate. Now with the show being advertised on the front page of thepiratebay.org it's certain this article will see lots of traffic. It also has the novelty of being the first series to ever attempt distributing just on torrents. That alone is enough to justify an article. The implication that this deletion submission was malicious or had ulterior motives wouldn't be unfounded. (I made the same comment in the discussion page)122.17.159.71 (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:Gray from GeekChique.org here: I would say it's notability is likely to rise now that it is the big image on the front of the Pirate Bay. Given that it is a brand new release, I would also suggest that comments about it not being big news may be because it hasn't had enough time to hit BBC, CNN, etc. 159.15.67.78 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "not being big news may be because it hasn't had enough time to hit BBC, CNN, etc." Please see WP:CRYSTAL. Note to new and anon posters: This is not a vote by numbers. You may support the article, but you must give good reasons - good by the standards of Wikipedia policy - for this. Liking it or it having a potential for notability are not good reasons. Yes, we would possibly delete Van Gogh's article unless sufficient notability had been shown - and he had more during his lifetime than is commonly assumed. This is an encyclopaedia, not a TV guide or a news review. "The implication that this deletion submission was malicious or had ulterior motives wouldn't be unfounded" - from what I know of the work here of the nominator, I would say definitely unfounded. The episode is a pilot. Pilots may become notable when the series takes off or for the presence of notable people/production/direction. Is the first thing released on DVD notable enough to have an article purely on that ground? (Substitute CD, VHS, whatever.) Peridon (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable and promotional. GregJackP (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the show have been featured on the homepage of several important websites like thepiratebay.org (Alexa's 100), eztv.it, etc. Faustop (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)— Faustop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- also it is been featured on utorrent.com (most popular bittorrent client in the world), and apparently is downloaded automatically when you install the software. (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
- the show is not even a week old, it takes e.g. newspapers some time to find the story write about it and print it.
- it's a new concept and for that reson a pioneer on that field, for that reson of encyclopedial interest
-Tavin (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)— Tavin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That is a good reason for deletion.... Peridon (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete and recreate as soon as mainstream covers it is the wikipedia policy? If so, where can I look that up? -Tavin (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)— Tavin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That is a good reason for deletion.... Peridon (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems like it'll be a pretty big deal very soon and the article is good. I don't see why it should be deleted now only to be remade in a few days or weeks. User:General_Staal is just a fan who saw the show and created an article for it. If this is deleted it'll just be remade again by the next fan who sees the show has no article. I for one would definitely write it. Torrent Freak also wrote a good article on it, I'd suggest reading it before casting a vote. 187.39.75.70 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really don't see why, read WP:CRYSTAL. I wish the creator of the show luck, and would have no objection to re-creation of the article - when/if the show is a success. Till then, we can't just have an article for every maybe or wannabe. Peridon (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you determine "success"? And more importantly, who have the power to do so? We already do have articles on most TV shows and films, how is this one different? There is no "no independent founding" policy, so far. Agent L (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really don't see why, read WP:CRYSTAL. I wish the creator of the show luck, and would have no objection to re-creation of the article - when/if the show is a success. Till then, we can't just have an article for every maybe or wannabe. Peridon (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The torrent of the first episode has more than 9000 seeders by now. Isin't this enough notability? Jogundas Armaitis (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this pilot episode is now widely available through multiple channels, and it appears to have reached tens of thousands of watchers. It is interesting to have it inside Wikipedia because it constitutes one of the early examples of crowd-financed fiction media, and because it was one of the first (if not the first) to go directly for BitTorrent distribution as the prime channel. It can (and will) be seen as an example of a new way to produce content - of course we don't know how successful the whole idea we will be, so we don't know if Pioneer One is like the first CD ever made (of billions) or rather like the first (of very few) ground effect vehicle. At the same time, if we can have a page for Larry Walters, I think we can afford a page about PioneerOne -- baffo —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep but rewrite and change angle. Or *Delete and wait. This works much better as "Pioneer One _was_/_is_ an attempt to make a (television series) using a free-to-torrent model instead of distributing through traditional channels." It is noteable for its experimental distribution process - this should be the angle of the entry. Remove all marketing lingo. That is all. But if you view it as one of many tries for the same goal; it is not noteable at all.84.211.53.251 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an early/the first significant torrent only distribution of a professionally produced series (jobbing actors as opposed to amateurs). Due to the fact that uTorrent and Pirate Bay are pushing the download (uTorrent making it part of their setup routine) is it likely that this pilot will be remembered as either "the first successful" or "an early attempt" at distribution of a professionally produced TV series exclusively via Torrent. If the laudable fan production Star Trek - Hidden Frontier can have a page, surely Pioneer One can. The article is to the point and informative without being overly promotional. Isn't one of the virtues of Wikipedia, that newly emerging subjects can be covered quickly? If the article is accurate, on a subject that is at least emerging as notable, why should it be deleted? In full disclosure, I know one of the actors appearing, but that is not the reason for this post. Like many people with actor friends, I though of it as just another project he's got himself tied up with... I was driven to look up the article and then visit this discussion, when the uTorrent install on my new Netbook prompted me to download the episode. The joy of Wikipedia is being able to do just that. Given that many people will see this series marketed elsewhere on the web and come to Wikipeida for information, getting the response "There were no results matching the query" on Wikipedia would be unfortunate. In my opinion: accurate + emerging as notable + early example of type = usefull and keep Johnrb (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC) JohnRB — Johnrb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Not for it being a low-funds TV series, as it is not exceptional in that respect, but for its attempt at being successful through Torrent distribution. This notability is also mentioned prominently in the article, but if it's not pointed out enough, it could be improved rather than deleted. The main reason for its notability is that we see a huge effort on the side of traditional media distribution groups against P2P networking as a concept. They essentially argue that P2P is different by not being tightly controllable and therefore it must be objectionable. Making an active effort to legally distribute media content via P2P is much more a political statement for the legitimacy of P2P as a cultural phenomenon than it is a way to keep distribution cost low. Compare this to other attempts at making a (mini-) series popular on the Internet (Dr. Horrible, for example) that while being free-as-in-beer (initially) did not use P2P technology (or any free-as-in-speech distribution channel), and you'll see how radically different Pioneer One is in that respect. And that, regardless of the story or audience reception of the actual content. --elwood_j_blues (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I came to Wikipedia looking for more information on this series. If it were not here on Wikipedia, I would likely not have any other immediate sources or information on the series. And, seeing as how the series is a first as in being completely funded only by donations to then be only distributed on torrent networks, I think it's noteworthy. There's plenty of other shows and series that have wiki pages that very few people have heard of, let alone seen. So I don't think deletion due to notability is in keeping with fairness. Also, plenty of new TV shows get their Wikipedia pages before they've even aired an episode - how are they not considered promotional, yet some claim this is? Again, fairness. 64.138.208.92 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm all for this show, and it will probably be a big deal in a month or more, but it's not notable at this time. The only news results I can find (the likeliest sources of info on something new like this) are blogs, which are not valid sources. --[TINC]-- (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Through Google News, I found two news articles covering the show: [5] and [6]; both sources seem credible. The show is new but it is getting coverage. Hom sepanta (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As if every song or every movie on wikipedia is notable. The sponsored distribution system is a first, and hopefully an example. --Cobbaut (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep what is becoming a popular show (looking at the torrent file). Coverage has been appearing in a few places: NewTeeVee[7], Geekosystem[8], TorrentFreak[9][10]. Akirn (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keepDon't be dicks and delete this. I'm downloading this now after seeing it on the front page of Slashdot. It only just came out and I came here to see what it's about. This is far more notable than articles I see on Wikipedia about a school with 200 pupils (hint: this film has more seeders alone) or random character from random show X. Wikipedia shouldn't rely on mainstream media for popularity- this is popular among people and internet news sites/blogs already. Genjix (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I don't know if this has enough coverage, but I think we should give it some time in any case. --a3_nm (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are definitely enough reliable sources to be verifiable. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As mentioned, this series has been noted on several prominent torrent sites, which demonstrates it is getting traction in it's novel approach to distribution. I'm also including a link to more coverage of Pioneer One.
Sci-Fi Thriller Series Pioneer One Debuts… For Torrents! --24.5.136.42 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Keep: I would argue that the appearance of an article dedicated to this series on Slashdot is evidence of notability; that's what brought me to the Wikipedia article and this page. The article was created on 17 June 2010 and proposed for deletion on the same day, which is unnecessarily short. A search on Google for "Pioneer One" on 20 June produced 147000 hits (which I would argue is not "a few"). I also concur with the comments of other posters on this thread; the fact that it is or claims to be the first for-torrent TV production implies inherent notability. It may be lacking references but I imagine there are a large number of other Wikipedia articles which are in the same state; that alone is not an inherent reason for deletion.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Pioneer One is already notable. No, it is not a blockbuster in terms of notability (Avatar anyone?) but the growing list of references on the article itself, the large number of result for "Pioneer One pilot" on Google (add to this that Pioneer One was released a short while ago - five days at the time of this writing) and the fact that is a first in regards of the distribution method (this argument was mentioned already before) warrants a strong keep vote from me. Also, making a good film with $7000 from donations is notable too. kkmic (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's a new film, made by the same group of people who made lionshare, which merited an article of it's own on Wiki, and no one is complaining about that one. So either start making arguments about why the other film should not be notable, or accept that the second film by people who have already *earned* notability from this site is going to be at least as notable. 99.233.232.67 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if it is notable per Wikipedia standards, where are the independent references from verifiable and reliable sources? The ones listed in the article are neither. As to The Lionshare, see WP:OTHERSTUFF - and that film does not appear to be notable either, so I've submitted it for a 2nd AfD. GregJackP (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources used in the article are reliable, from reputable news agencies such as NewTeeVee and Geekosystem, and organizations like TorrentFreak.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources used in the article are reliable, from reputable news agencies such as NewTeeVee and Geekosystem, and organizations like TorrentFreak.
- All of which are blogs, and not from news agencies. See WP:SPS - they are not reliable. GregJackP (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a blog does not automatically disqualify a source as unreliable.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - This is a good point. Especially in the case of TorrentFreak, which, although published in blog format, is a news blog well-known for reporting on Bittorrent and Internet piracy topics. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a blog does not automatically disqualify a source as unreliable.
- Keep: I think it's a keep as even though it might not have had a lot to say, why shouldn't it be on wikipedia? Or why should any movie other than the groundbreaking ones be on wikipedia? It just seems stupid to delete it because it lacks sources the first day it's up on wikipedia... there's pages with far higher importance with near to or no sources at all. Thor erik (talk|contrib) 17:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I don't understand the "notability" argument. There are lots of TV shows in Wikipedia that haven't even been broadcasted and many others that have just made their debut. If "Pioneer One" isn't notable, then many other TV shows should be deleted too. This is a revolutionary show, only if because it was produced purely with donations. So what's the deal? A TV show is notable only if a TV channel produces and promotes it? I really can't comprehend the narrow-mindness in this approach. Dfisek (talk|contrib) 18:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As others have mentioned, this distribution of this project is inherently notable, and it's certainly of a greater cultural import than, say, St. Olaf Township. 99.199.104.75 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Louist[reply]
- Keep: I think that it is defiantly significant enough to be kept, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and in theory any television program produced and shown to a significant audience has merit to at least have 1 entry. Considering this is A. Sigificant for it's distrubitution model and B. It's production finance method and independent merits as a series. I believe the article should stay. Jamesnd (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: From Wikipedia:Notability: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject". Visit the popular Pirate Bay. The advertisement placed in the center is quite notable there. :) Every day people like me come to this article hoping to get some unbiased information on the subject. That's what wiki is for. The reliable sources will follow even if there are none at the moment. DoomMaster (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)— DoomMaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Exactly what I was going to write. I came here to learn more about the show, deleting the article defies purpose of Wikipedia to me. Agent L (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: The existing sources seem a little weak in establishing notability. However, as a heuristic, the quality of the first episode is really high (a notch below U.S. prime time shows) so there'll quite likely be more coverage coming. IOW, since this is bigger than most indy film projects, it'll probably be possible to establish enough notability if we give it a little time to wait for more news coverage. -- 87.143.159.98 (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough news coverage, if low key (ex. [11]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient coverage and notability. Most likely this argument helped with that, but as it stands, it is notable enough.Tumble-Weed 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumble-Weed (talk • contribs)
- Weak keep. It does have sources, though they aren't top-tier. However, it's likely to have better sources available in the near term; to echo Jamesnd above, it is just likely to end up being seen as Important, because of the independent production and distribution model. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's notable enough, and I'm confident the article will be much better in a few weeks as the news reports start. Besides notability for a TV show is quite relative. Villy (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources include creators website and publishers. Just because it has not been on TV, and second quoted on IMDB does not make this less credible than other TV Shows. Ridiculous suggestion. --78.105.115.195 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The flood of new single purpose accounts rushing in to vote for keeping, along with some old accounts which had one edit long ago and may have been lying folded in a drawer somewhere arguing non-usefully that "Other Stuff Exists" or "Its Going To Get Coverage" or "It Has X Google Hits" are not at all convincing in their demands that it be kept. The fact of something being "The First" of its kind in no way satisfies any Wikipedia notability guideline. Wikipedia is not here to publicize some worthy new thing which has not yet been noted by reliable and independent sources. We are left with the need for significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. So far, the mainstream broadcast and print media have not covered it. There has been significant coverage in several online sources, as shown by Google News [12]. Several were discussed above. If a blog has editorial supervision and a reputation as a reliable source (perhaps demonstrated by its being cited as such by mainstream media) then a signed article therein contributes to notability by Wikipedia standards. This program appears to barely meet that standard in its coverage so far. An AFD is normally open for seven days, and today is apparently just a week since the debut. Edison (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NF states that a work like this can be considered notable if it "represents a unique accomplishment in cinema [or] is a milestone in the development of film art". Being "the first of its kind" would make this notable.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- If it had debuted long enough ago that reliable sources had had time to call it a "milestone" in cinema than that argument would be more convincing. Otherwise anything "new" could claim it, based on the opinion of a Wikipedia editor or some breathless blogfan. Edison (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NF states that a work like this can be considered notable if it "represents a unique accomplishment in cinema [or] is a milestone in the development of film art". Being "the first of its kind" would make this notable.
- Keep Totally keep. The reasons? All the "keep reasons" above this one... Why would someone be interested on deleting a page for a first-of-its-kind project? And by the way, a great project, if you watch it you will be amazed... Daniel32708 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "I like the movie" in no way is an argument against deletion. Edison (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not the argument. The argument is a first-of-its-kind project + all the above arguments.Daniel32708 (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "I like the movie" in no way is an argument against deletion. Edison (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt now is covered by a German newspaper called TAZ, should be notable now link --Tavin (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike vote. Tavin already voted above. --Bensin (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe Taz link is to Die Tageszeitung, an alternative nationally distributed German paper, around since 1978, and which looks like significant coverage in a reliable source for purposes of the notability of this article's subject. Edison (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - APC (Australia), ITavisen (Norway), 20 minutes (France), Bright (Netherlands) and golem.de (Gemany) writes about it. Not that it matters, but it's a pretty popular article.[13]. --Bensin (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- El Jinn Walmaskoon (Documentary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Complete lack of sources, and only links to YouTube and Facebook. Nothing here indicates why it is notable, and the director of the film appears to be the editor of the page. Promo. — Timneu22 · talk 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the film was made in Dubai, sources in English may be difficult to find. I would suggest searching for Arabic language sources, but as I do not speak Arabic, I cannot help in this regard. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a notable documentary. Lustralaustral (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The nominator's challenge was twofold: first, that the film fails WP:NFF, and the rough consensus is that this limb of the challenge has been refuted by evidence that the filming has started and is notable by virtue of the fame of certain cast members; and second, that the film fails WP:NF, and the rough consensus is that this limb of the challenge has been refuted by evidence of coverage in sources that the debate participants (by and large) found to be reliable. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Blood Out (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable future film. Fails WP:NFF and WP:NF, lacking significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Prod removed by SPA IP 70.112.195.183 (talk · contribs) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That someone may have not been logged in when making a few edits or is making edits as a new and inexperienced user does not does not automatically make them WP:SPAs.. simply editors without a long contribution history. So unless either is engaged in vandalism, why not give the benefit of the doubt, and extend courtesy and assistance? Toward my "keep"... principle filming had begun and (perhaps) been completed (4 weeks is enough if production is tight),
a trailer has been released,and the project uses the talents of many notables which which is why it is receiving coverage in reliable sources... thus meeting the cautions of WP:NF and WP:CRYSTAL. Common sense would indicate that this project will get more coverage and not less as release approaches... and as cleanup, expansion, and sourcing have begun since nomination, it best serves the project and its readers to have this article remain and grow through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove it has finished production. Someone randomly changing the article to claim it so it supposedly meets WP:NFF does not make it so. Further, note that NFF also notes very clearly "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." - who is starring in the film does not make it notable, nor do random press releases. The production has not had significant coverage in any reliable sources, just confirmation of its being planned and filming starting. It doesn't even have a confirmed release date beyond the vague "2011" (unsourced). As such, no it does not best serve the project to have an article for the posting of rumors and IMDB-style status updates. And an editor whose only edits have ever been to this single article is an WP:SPA whether you agree with the term or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect assertion, as guidelines are not mutually exclusionary. Involvement by notables that then give a film's production coverage in multiple reliable sources can indeed make a film's production notable per notability guidelines... which is why NFF is written as it is... as it is set to recognize that the GNG might be met even for an as-yet-unreleased film. And your bone-of-contention about whether or not the project is in post-production was easy to remove, pending sourcing... and there absolutely no point in going to battle over it with you.[14] And, as Wikipedia itself understands it is itself imperfect and a ongoing work in progress, demanding immediate perfection from newcomers sometimes kinda runs against guideline. There is also not always a mandate to ignore an article's possibility for ongoing improvement and then give the bum's rush to a new article by a new editor, unless due diligence shows the article itself to be hoax or vandalism or totally lacking in sourcability. If an IP removes a tag, that is also no reason to then send it to AFD two minutes later.[15] Such give good faith newcomers a bad impression toward the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove it has finished production. Someone randomly changing the article to claim it so it supposedly meets WP:NFF does not make it so. Further, note that NFF also notes very clearly "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." - who is starring in the film does not make it notable, nor do random press releases. The production has not had significant coverage in any reliable sources, just confirmation of its being planned and filming starting. It doesn't even have a confirmed release date beyond the vague "2011" (unsourced). As such, no it does not best serve the project to have an article for the posting of rumors and IMDB-style status updates. And an editor whose only edits have ever been to this single article is an WP:SPA whether you agree with the term or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -WP:NFF, filming started last month. this has a long way to go before release and notability GtstrickyTalk or C 23:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guideline instructs that "articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." An film with Val Kilmer, AnnaLynne McCord, Tamer Hassan, Luke Goss, 50 Cent, Ed Quinn, Tamer Hassan, Ryan Donowho, Ambyr Childers, Michael Arata, and Vinnie Jones could be considered to be of sufficiently wide interest to merit inclusion as release nears. The project has been generating enough coverage, so that WP:GNG is being met... and it must not be forgotten that per WP:NFF, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines"... those "notability guidelines" include WP:GNG, and as we have a film by a notable director and with a notable cast, coverage of the production to meet the GNG is easily found by those who look. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No sense deleting now just to recreate it later on. Most of the news I find through a search is about two of the actors beating one another up at a hotel. Big name actors will surely have press about everything they do somewhere. Dream Focus 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually, there is sense in deleting it now just to recreate it later on. It's called WP:NFF. There's no guarantee that this film will ever be finished or released. There's no sense in creating the article before the film even exists. Fails WP:NFF and WP:NF. SnottyWong verbalize 22:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi SW... welcome
to another article tagged for rescue. Per the userbox you display on your user page, I expected you much sooner and had missed your presence. Glad you did not disappoint,as I always find your comments worth reading. And no... my statement is not intended to be sarcastic, as you do indeed help in my own better understanding of guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi SW... welcome
- Hi Snotty, are you here because you've studied the article, or simply because this article was listed at ARS and per your userbox, you've promised to vote to delete most of those (20/21 wasn't it?) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Andy Dingley and (to a much lesser extent) MichealQSchmidt are presumably (and inappropriately) attempting to discredit my !vote by pointing out that I regularly patrol articles that are tagged for rescue, and often vote to delete some of them (in good faith), as evidenced by one of my userboxes. The acceptability of my actions and of my userbox have been debated ad nauseum at the MfD for the userbox, and should not affect the way my comments are taken into consideration during closing. Thanks. SnottyWong gossip 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your userbox is your userbox, and as you ponted out, other editor's concerns about the userbox were disscussed at a the MFD, and per that MFD, your public announcement of your intentions is perfectly acceptable... just as I have the ARS userbox on my userpage... as well as ones for WikiProject Films, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Biography, Unreferenced articles WikiProject, and the Article Incubator. I can only hope that editors look at my userboxes and judge the quality of my edits accordingly. Anyone with specialized userboxes is open to the same scrutiny. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, ok. Then you won't mind if I point out your membership in ARS at every rescue-tagged AfD, and subtly imply that your membership might be influencing you to vote Keep. In fact, maybe I'll even make a new template to make it easier:
- — MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) is a member of the Article Rescue Squadron.
- SnottyWong gossip 04:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! That sure showed me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a better one:
- — MichaelQSchmidt's !vote to keep this article may have been influenced by their membership in the Article Rescue Squadron.
- I'll go make the template. SnottyWong babble 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And your templates are helpful to civil discussion how? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They illustrate how your initial comment about my userbox was equally unhelpful, irrelevant, and inappropriate. SnottyWong express 04:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And your templates are helpful to civil discussion how? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! That sure showed me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ SW: Article topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed on the right...." The subsections of WP:N do not overrule the main notability guideline page... they support it and allow further considerations toward notability, and guideline are not set to be mutually exclusionary. Someone may fail GNG but pass ANYBIO. Someone might fail ANYBIO but pass GNG. So sorry... the topic does pass both WP:GNG and WP:NFF... through the notability of its production, as NFF is set in place to acknowledge that unreleased films might be found notable through production receiving coverage in reliable sources... as this one is.... and there is absolutely no hint of it being in "production hell".... quite the opposite. Further, it has distribution in place and a tentative release set for the end of the year. Lionsgate has locked distribution in the US, UK, and Canada... and Cinema Management Group of Los Angeles has locked sales in (so far) Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Latin America, Poland, Turkey, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Scandinavia, and the Middle East... seems folks want to show this film. Now had this film been something merely "rumored", or something still in still in "pre-production", I might tend to agree... but that's not the case. Considering who is involved, coverage has been continuing... and it is a bit of a strech to think that coverage might somehow decrease as release draws near... and heck, even total failures that were never released can and have occasionally been found notable enough for Wikipedia... but hey... this ain't been claimed or shown a failure here by anyone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. If the production shuts down today, nothing that has occured is notable. In the film world it happens every day. Will it, likely no, but all that is WP:CRYSTAL. We are assuming that in the future this will be a notable project either by it's release, or by some notable closure to the project. Anyway the article looks like a keep so I guess it is a waisted debate. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. There is no film yet. If the lead actor has a heart attack and dies, there may never be a movie. No one is debating that the film will likely be notable once it exists. But until it does exist, there is no reason for an article. WP:NFF is crystal clear on this policy. The only exception is if the production of the film itself is notable, of which I have seen no evidence. Why not put it in incubation until the film is finished? SnottyWong confer 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, with so many international sales already made, were Val Kilmer to die tonight (Lord forfend), the reality is that production would probably find some way to continue without him (as was done upon John Candys death during the shooting of Wagons East!) as fimmakers make films to make money, and investors and customers expect results... else production would be subject to such a bloodbath of lawsuits that we'd have continued coverage of production due to that happening. But naturally such empty speculation in expecting or predicting failure at this late stage in principle filming is the true WP:CRYSTAL. The reason to keep is based upon it specifically meeting guideline, as explained and shown repeatedly on this page. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the ARS started training its members in the art of the Straw man argument? My point was that this film doesn't exist yet, and by speculating on its hypothetical cancellation I am attempting to prove a point which obviously went over your head. I'll explain again: if the production of the film suddenly stopped and the film was never finished, then the film would not be notable and would not deserve an article unless the circumstances under which it was cancelled were themselves notable. So, if the non-existent film is not notable now, then the article should be deleted until it becomes notable, because there is no guarantee that the film will ever be finished. Note: I am not looking into my crystal ball and predicting that this film will be cancelled. I am only referencing its cancellation as a hypothetical exercise in an attempt to illustrate an idea. SnottyWong chat 04:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Has the ARS started training its members in the art of the Straw man argument?" What an incredible bad faith and incivil acccusation, set to denigrate as many editors as possible at once. Your hypothetical speculations are just that.. hypothetical speculations... while my own comments towazrd production's current and growing notability, and why, are directly supported by guideline and sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, guidelines are guidelines. Do you have any sources which confirm that principal photography has started? If not, then it fails WP:NFF, unless you have sources which establish the notability of the production itself, independent of the film. Simple as that. Please produce the sources. SnottyWong chat 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, with so many international sales already made, were Val Kilmer to die tonight (Lord forfend), the reality is that production would probably find some way to continue without him (as was done upon John Candys death during the shooting of Wagons East!) as fimmakers make films to make money, and investors and customers expect results... else production would be subject to such a bloodbath of lawsuits that we'd have continued coverage of production due to that happening. But naturally such empty speculation in expecting or predicting failure at this late stage in principle filming is the true WP:CRYSTAL. The reason to keep is based upon it specifically meeting guideline, as explained and shown repeatedly on this page. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. There is no film yet. If the lead actor has a heart attack and dies, there may never be a movie. No one is debating that the film will likely be notable once it exists. But until it does exist, there is no reason for an article. WP:NFF is crystal clear on this policy. The only exception is if the production of the film itself is notable, of which I have seen no evidence. Why not put it in incubation until the film is finished? SnottyWong confer 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. If the production shuts down today, nothing that has occured is notable. In the film world it happens every day. Will it, likely no, but all that is WP:CRYSTAL. We are assuming that in the future this will be a notable project either by it's release, or by some notable closure to the project. Anyway the article looks like a keep so I guess it is a waisted debate. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Come on! Notable cast, crew, and reliably sourced. A notable project before, after, or if it's never released. And truly stupid, and a waste of a lot of people's time to nominate, much less delete. Dekkappai (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a reason to keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, the argument his not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability of production through its coverage. And THAT is per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Covered in enough reliable, independent sources to make it notable regardless of what WP:NFF says. Reyk YO! 21:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per WP:IAR. Ultimately it is a notable production and Wikipedia is improved by covering it. -- Ϫ 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR is not a reason to keep an article. In fact, IAR argues equally for both deletion and keeping. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, the argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability of production through its coverage, and improving the project through retention of an article. And THAT is per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no guideline that says automatic retention of articles improves Wikipedia. Also, for the original comment about IAR, see WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. SnottyWong chatter 14:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is asking for "automatic" retention. You might though want to actually read WP:IAR and then confirm for yourself by either reading the article or seraching for sources that the production is being covered in multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable cast, past the dream stage and into production, distribution locked in, release date tentative, coverage in significant publications. - BalthCat (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a reason to keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, the argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability of production through its coverage, and THAT is per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what unique aspect of the production of this film is notable, and which sources establish its notability? SnottyWong speak 04:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Production being written of in multiple reliable sources meets the instructions toward consideration of notability as set forth in WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Coverage cited in article is sufficient to meet WP:N. If filming hadn't started yet, that would be one thing, but that's not this case.--Milowent (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFF requires that the production of the filming itself be notable in order to have an article about a future film. Are there any sources which establish the notability of the production itself? SnottyWong converse 20:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Production being written of in multiple reliable sources meets the instructions toward consideration of notability as set forth in WP:GNG. Both the article AND searches offer these sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Production received notability through its meeting WP:GNG. This has, and so this is. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen no evidence of your claim. Which sources establish the notability of the production of the film? SnottyWong confer 14:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Production being written of in multiple reliable sources meets the instructions toward consideration of notability as set forth in WP:GNG. Both the article AND searches offer these sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep: looks well sourced... there is a difference between being a crystal ball vs talking about something in development... Arskwad (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a reason to keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a slight case of Déjà vu now.--Milowent (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. SnottyWong yak 20:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Schmidt. WP:CRYSTAL is rightly a prohibition on making predictions about the future. This article covers a major commercial endeavour that is already under way. If it cancelled tomorrow there would need to be changes made, but the article would still be justified as, "What was Val Kilmer doing in 2010 and why wasn't it ever released?" (Terry Gilliams passim). We're past the point where WP:NFF is against it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's the whole point. If the production was cancelled tomorrow, this article would be immediately deleted, and maybe a one-line bullet point would get added to Val Kilmer's article. Unless, of course, the reason that the production was cancelled was itself notable. SnottyWong soliloquize 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have lots of articles on cancelled films though, e.g., Something's Got to Give. See also "Category:Cancelled films" not to mention "Category:Upcoming films".--Milowent (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have articles on cancelled films, so your response above is irrelevant. I'll bet we have articles on about 0.00001% of all films that have ever been cancelled. The only ones with articles are those whose cancellation itself was notable (i.e. if it was cancelled as a result of Marilyn Monroe's death, as in your example), or other circumstances surrounding the production were notable. SnottyWong spout 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well give Snotty time, he hasn't got round to AfD'ing it yet! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IF the film were cancelled tomorrow... the production would likely remain notable for a whole different set of reasons. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have articles on cancelled films, so your response above is irrelevant. I'll bet we have articles on about 0.00001% of all films that have ever been cancelled. The only ones with articles are those whose cancellation itself was notable (i.e. if it was cancelled as a result of Marilyn Monroe's death, as in your example), or other circumstances surrounding the production were notable. SnottyWong spout 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It doesn't, in my opinion, fail WP:NFF. Filming has started, and this has a source, and a notable cast. No reason to delete. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Michael Corrente. Redirecting as an editorial decision, consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Verdi Corrente Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has existed a few weeks now, with multiple problems. Summarize: reads link an advertisement, no notability, nothing links here, no reliable sources, and author has edited only this page and Inkubus, which leads me to believe this is a single-purpose account. No non-trivial third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working on enhancing the page's objectivity as well as providing links and references for the company. It seems that it is a professional production outfit. I agree the page needs work.User:HarvardGenius
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any verifiable information to Michael Corrente. All I can find are press releases and passing mention. This company has not yet released a film. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR T. Canens (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nino Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete No significant coverage --Wipeouting (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the film has not been released yet, there is a Sunday Times article about it already. That's a pretty good start into significant coverage, in my book. Better to improve and expand at this point than delete. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It does have some sources, but I don't see what makes it notable. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 15:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it should be incubated.--PinkBull 22:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 06:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Categories
- Category:Film directors by century at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Film directors by century (2 March 2010)
Closed discussions
- Category:Anacondas films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 18#Category:Anacondas films (16 May 2009 – 26 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Jewish film and theatre at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Category:Jewish film and theatre (16 May 2009 – 27 May 2009) No Consensus
- Category:Films shot in stereoscopy at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Category:Films shot in stereoscopy (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Science fiction crews in film and television at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#2009 May 16 (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Beethoven films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:The Bourne films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Candyman films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Child's Play at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Class of Nuke 'Em High films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Critters films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 16#Film series (16 May 2009 – 25 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:Xxx films at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 14#Category:Xxx films (14 May 2009 – 26 May 2009) Deleted
- Category:B-movie directors at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 3#Category:B-movie directors (3 January 2009 – 9 January 2009) Deleted
Templates
Proposed deletions
- For future film notifications, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Proposed deletions
- Cruel Jaws (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- Double Target (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- KZ9 (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- Porno Holocaust (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- Rats: Night of Terror (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- SS Girls (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deprodded
- Sexy Night Report (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted
- Strike Commando (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2009) Deleted