Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film: Difference between revisions
Listing The Host (2011 film) |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Toxic Avenger 5: The Toxic Twins}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Toxic Avenger 5: The Toxic Twins}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Must Be The Place}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Must Be The Place}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Directors}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lionshare (2nd nomination)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lionshare (2nd nomination)}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Midnight Curfew}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Midnight Curfew}} |
Revision as of 16:28, 24 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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
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 redirected---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Host (2011 film)
- The Host (2011 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)
Article based on the book version The Host (novel) so anything here would be speculation. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice since principal photography hasn't begun. There's already a section about this film project at the article about its source material and that's where information about it belongs until production actually starts. Cliff smith talk 03:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper User:Cliff smith. There is aboslutely no film content in the article. I am quite confused that the article appears to be about a book, with the only mention of it being about a film is in the title and implied by inclusion of a "rumored" cast member. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect the stub without prejudice for recreation to The Host (novel)#Film adaptation where this is already mentioned. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt above. SnottyWong soliloquize 17:59, 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 delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iron Man (film series)
- Iron Man (film series) (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)
Previous AfD resulted in delete. It was recreated but is now worse. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep without prejudice - I declined the G4 speedy request because this article was substantially different from the one that was deleted and did not contain a copy/paste of the text without proper attribution. (GFDL attribution history was the reason the previous one was deleted, not the content.) Though the current article is rather useless, it was only just started yesterday. We don't normally delete articles just because they aren't finished yet. --B (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't know what could be added to this article, that would be beyond the scope of the 2 individual movie articles we have now. The creator apparently doesn't know either, because all he's done is add links to the movies' articles and create a pointless character table which would certainly be the first thing to go if this article is kept. I suggest waiting for the eventual Iron Man 3.--Atlan (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Film series is blank (it would help to develop one). However, with only two films in the series, there doesn't seem to be anything that merits an article that isn't already handled in the articles on the two films and in the parent article Iron Man. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it might be more helpful to rename it to Iron Man in film, and develop it that way, since I think it has a few animated titles. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete, again. Two films does not a series make, and article has little to no possibility for additional expansion outside of the two existing film articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see why the Iron Man film series should haven't its own page when the Fantastic Four series (two films) already does. And there is probably a greater chance that a third Iron Man movie will be created than another F4. In the Marvel Films template, nearly every other Marvel film franchise with two or more films has its own series page. The page as it currently exists is certainly terrible, but it could be improved if people put in the work. This article just needs some focused attention from people who typically edit Marvel film pages. This page would also be the optimal place for describing planned future films or spin-offs, which are currently mentioned on the Iron Man 2 page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's not an excuse to keep this article, especially in the state that it's in. The creator hasn't bothered to flesh out the article and probably can't. It's no great loss to delete it and recreate it when there's something to write about. The rest of your argument is basically crystal balling about future releases and centering the article on that. We're not in the habit of keeping articles, just because a sequel movie is likely, as opposed to confirmed.--Atlan (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points, but you suggest that the article could be recreated "when there's something to write about." The original editor must have thought that there was something to write about or it wouldn't have been created. This will always be subjective. How will we know when the time is right going forward? Would one more film in the series make a difference? My thought is that if the page has been deleted twice already, it is much less likely to be created again in the future, even if it would make sense to do so (surely, no one wants to invest time in a page only to see it deleted). There was also a bit of nuance to my other argument that you might have missed. I wasn't saying that this page should exist because a page for a Pokemon character (or other crap) exists. I was arguing for consistency across similar pages that appear in a specific template. If you think the page for the Fantastic Four series should be deleted because it only discusses two films as well, then that is a debatable point. But, it makes sense to me that pages organized within the same template should be added or deleted based on a consistent criteria, rather than on a piecemeal basis. If you think the future film content I referred to in my other point is crystal balling, that's fine. I didn't write the paragraph. If you have problems with it, I suggest you take up the issue on the Iron Man 2 (talk) page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever reluctance any future editor might have in creating Iron Man (film series) can never be a reason to keep it now. Whatever potential you believe the article creator thought the article has is entirely moot, as he has done nothing to improve it. This page discusses deleting the article on the basis of it's content, not hypothetical situations and conjecture. Fantastic Four (film series) is obviously fleshed out pretty well. Getting Iron Man (film series) up to that level would require taking a lot of information from the Iron Man film articles, which is indeed what was done with the 2 previous iterations of this article. I would only support this if the 2 film articles are so large that they would require splitting.--Atlan (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like you are saying the page shouldn't exist because of the lack of original content, not so much that the topic of the page isn't worthy. However, I personally like the character table (it appears in most other Marvel film series pages as well) and think it is well suited to this specific page. The other Marvel film series pages seem like they would be good examples of the type of content that could be unique to this page as well. I guess I'm not sure why this has been marked as an AFD rather than a stub. If all it would take is some work to get it fleshed out, as you say, then it seems like this would qualify as a stub. Marking it as such might just invite the work that you feel the page still needs. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The topic is worthy of an article, but as it is, there's no content to justify the article. Stubbing an article that is basically 2 links to real articles and a character table is pointless. If you think the article has potential to expand, go ahead and do it. As long as no one does, I'll stick to my vote.--Atlan (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like you are saying the page shouldn't exist because of the lack of original content, not so much that the topic of the page isn't worthy. However, I personally like the character table (it appears in most other Marvel film series pages as well) and think it is well suited to this specific page. The other Marvel film series pages seem like they would be good examples of the type of content that could be unique to this page as well. I guess I'm not sure why this has been marked as an AFD rather than a stub. If all it would take is some work to get it fleshed out, as you say, then it seems like this would qualify as a stub. Marking it as such might just invite the work that you feel the page still needs. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever reluctance any future editor might have in creating Iron Man (film series) can never be a reason to keep it now. Whatever potential you believe the article creator thought the article has is entirely moot, as he has done nothing to improve it. This page discusses deleting the article on the basis of it's content, not hypothetical situations and conjecture. Fantastic Four (film series) is obviously fleshed out pretty well. Getting Iron Man (film series) up to that level would require taking a lot of information from the Iron Man film articles, which is indeed what was done with the 2 previous iterations of this article. I would only support this if the 2 film articles are so large that they would require splitting.--Atlan (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points, but you suggest that the article could be recreated "when there's something to write about." The original editor must have thought that there was something to write about or it wouldn't have been created. This will always be subjective. How will we know when the time is right going forward? Would one more film in the series make a difference? My thought is that if the page has been deleted twice already, it is much less likely to be created again in the future, even if it would make sense to do so (surely, no one wants to invest time in a page only to see it deleted). There was also a bit of nuance to my other argument that you might have missed. I wasn't saying that this page should exist because a page for a Pokemon character (or other crap) exists. I was arguing for consistency across similar pages that appear in a specific template. If you think the page for the Fantastic Four series should be deleted because it only discusses two films as well, then that is a debatable point. But, it makes sense to me that pages organized within the same template should be added or deleted based on a consistent criteria, rather than on a piecemeal basis. If you think the future film content I referred to in my other point is crystal balling, that's fine. I didn't write the paragraph. If you have problems with it, I suggest you take up the issue on the Iron Man 2 (talk) page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's not an excuse to keep this article, especially in the state that it's in. The creator hasn't bothered to flesh out the article and probably can't. It's no great loss to delete it and recreate it when there's something to write about. The rest of your argument is basically crystal balling about future releases and centering the article on that. We're not in the habit of keeping articles, just because a sequel movie is likely, as opposed to confirmed.--Atlan (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is nothing in this article that doesn't already appear at the articles for the two individual films in the "series". The redundancy is unnecessary. SnottyWong chat 19:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Series already covered with Marvel Cinematic Universe article.-5- (talk) 04:42, 1 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 Userfy. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two Blue Lines
- Two Blue Lines (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)
Non-notable 22 minute movie from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.C. Monaghan, which I just nominated for AfD, as well. No proof of notability. All references are to own website. Best of luck to Mr. Monaghan's future work but I'm afraid nothing justifies him being on Wikipedia at this point. mboverload@ 06:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the original author of the page. This film is an important and major educational resource package and is gaining attention in the education sector as a valuable resource. There is unfortunately not a lot of information available for educators about the project and I aimed to try to create a valuable point of reference. Due to the closed nature of the industry, attention is largely verbal, but the increasing nature of the attention means that nearer the time of publication (october) it is highly likely that there will be more notable references, and this resource will more fully meet the notability reqs. If necessary I will take the page back to my userspace and hold it and build it until such a time it completely meets the standards. I recommend keeping the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquila92 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Mboverload nothing at this time establishes notability. serialrage@ 07:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NF. I am not opposed to moving the article to Aquila92's user space to give him time to find references once the film is released. Movementarian (Talk) 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy and Delete. Post-release, if reliable sources are forthcoming it can then be recreated as an article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy User:Boing! said Zebedee offers a solution that acknowledges the good faith efforts of the author and allows a return when notability is met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unnotable film that fails WP:NF and WP:N and seems unlikely to ever do so. User has already copied it back to their user space, so userification unnecessary. Would recommend Aquila92 review WP:COI though, due to his seeming inside knowledge of both the film and Monaghan. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:35, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. BencherliteTalk 11:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Love (2008 Indonesian film)
- Withdraw - Article now has references to assert notability and has been expanded into a useful encyclopedia entry. DiiCinta (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Love (2008 Indonesian 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)
I can find no siginificant coverage in reliable sources to assert that this film passes GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (films). Although there may be Indonesian language references that could assert notability, but my Indonesian is far too limited to find them. DiiCinta (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per the last AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - The last AFD resulted in a keep based upon a section of WP:NF that has since changed ("The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country"). This was the sole argument used in the last AFD however it is now different in WP:NF. So how can you base your keep vote on the last AFD? DiiCinta (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current policy is "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited". This article clearly does not currently satisfy the criteria. DiiCinta (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:NF. To support its arguments toward keep, the last AFD also included reference to a lengthy review in Jakata Post. I note it is also covered in Sinar Harapan, and the award-winning filmmaker and his works is covered in multiple sources over multiple years.[1] Appears to meet WP:GNG, and notability in Indonesia is notable enough for en.Wikipedia if sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I was quite surpised at how short the stub was, I expanded it from one sentence[2] to THIS and began adding sources. Surmountable issues are reasons to address those issues... not to delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has now gone from a 9 word unsourced stub to a 303 word sourced article... a 33.7x expansion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the fine improvement by MQS (though the film was worth an article no matter its previous state). Notable personnel, mainstream coverage, obviously notable in Indonesian cinema. We should really be bending over backwards to prevent Anglo-centric biased coverage. It's too bad so many editors are less concerned with preventing bias than with strictly following the letter of guidelines made up by those same editors... Dekkappai (talk) 06:01, 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Symphony 19
- Symphony 19 (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:CORP, looks like an ad. can't find significant coverage [3]. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unnotable company; fails WP:N and WP:CORP as it has absolutely no coverage in reliable, third party sources. Appears to be an advert type posting, as article creator claims to also be the creator of its logo in his uploading of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brave (2012 film)
- Brave (2012 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)
Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication that the creation of this film has begun. IMDB lists the film as "In Development", which clearly indicates that it is still in pre-production. SnottyWong speak 03:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep *facepalm* Clickpop (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- You can't just reply to a facepalm with a "just a vote." a facepalm implies that your nomination is way off.--Milowent (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok... Well that may be, but there is still no reason given for his vote, so it is useless. SnottyWong confer 04:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think any Pixar film is quite notable. This is not a film by Somebody's Garage, Inc, and the existence of the film is confirmed. Why the need to delete? PopTartS2000 06:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no Wikipedia policy that says every Pixar film is notable. Furthermore, the existence of the film is not confirmed. In fact, the sources confirm that the production of the film has not yet started, therefore we can safely assume that not one frame of the film has been created yet. WP:NFF is crystal clear that films whose production has not been started should not have articles. SnottyWong communicate 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep (as if "strong" makes a difference). This is possibly the worst deletion nomination I've seen. It's Pixar. Come on! dogman15 (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid rationale to keep this article (and certainly not a "strong" one). See WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT. SnottyWong babble 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seriously??? This is an ANIMATED film. Pixar films usually take 2-3 years to complete after given the go ahead because animation takes time, Toy Story 2 being the exception. The film has a release date, stars have been cast, a director assigned and the script finished. Therefore, its safe to assume the animation process has been started. It's also the first Pixar film with a female lead.Bgwhite (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, seriously. We don't assume anything on WP, we find souces which confirm that the animation process has started. I've found sources which confirm that the animation process has not started. Therefore, this film fails WP:NFF and should be deleted. The rationale behind WP:NFF is that if, for whatever reason, Pixar decides to cancel this film before production is started, then this article would have to be deleted, which illustrates the point that there is nothing notable about this film (yet) because it simply doesn't exist. Once the production of the film starts and it becomes clear that this film will eventually be released, then the article can be re-created.SnottyWong prattle 13:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep assuming that Brave is a regular live action film when it's an animated film. If Brave was a live action film, I would support deletion of the article. Every Pixar film was in production for atleast 2 years except for Toy Story 2. Toy Story 3 was in production for 3 years, Up 4 years and Wall-E atleast 3 years. By production I mean doing the storyboarding as in animation film this is where the heavy work is at and where production is considered underway. Pixar does 3-D storyboards and is a film unto itself. So, yes, I'm assuming Brave is following the same pattern as there is no evidence to the contrary. Using IMDB's entry for Brave is not evidence as imdb says the same thing about Cars 2 as Brave. Cars 2 is clearly in production. I can point to where Brave has been in production since September 2009, but I give as much credence to that source as IMDB. Please show me evidence where Brave is not following the same pattern and is not in production.
- As for Newt, Newt was in production and had a wiki page created, just like any notable film that was in production. The film was canceled and wiki page is now appropriately being merged. If Brave is also canceled, the wiki page should also be merged.
- Pixar is a special breed. At the moment all upcoming Pixar films are notable as Pixar has yet to release a bad film, all eligible Pixar films has been nominated for animation Oscar and all Pixar films have been in the top 5 money making films for the year except Ratatouille (#11).
- Therefore, Brave is in production and filming by the definition of animated films, it is notable and thus conforms to WP:NFF. Bgwhite (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still making a whole lot of assumptions about the production of this film, and there are zero sources to back up those assumptions. It makes no difference whether the film is animated or not. The burden is on you for finding a source which unambiguously proves that the film is in production (not pre-production); the burden is not on me to find sources that prove it is not in production (even though I've done that already). And again, show me a WP guideline that says all past, present, and future Pixar films are automatically notable, and I'll gladly withdraw my nomination for deletion. SnottyWong prattle 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "show me a WP guideline that says all past, present, and future Pixar films are automatically notable" WP:NFF states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore all past and current Pixar films as with most commercially released films are notable. As for a film in production, the NFF states, "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" The notability guideline (WP:N) states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." and "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". As the production of Brave has received significant coverage in reliable sources and due to past Pixar films fame, importance and popularity, Brave is notable under the guidelines.
- "It makes no difference whether the film is animated or not." Yes it does. In the NFF it states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography"... the definition given to principal photography is "movie is actually filmed, with actors on set and cameras rolling"... that is for live action film and not animation. What is the definition of principal photography in animation? I suggest looking at this Wired article on how a Pixar film is made. Brave has been in atleast pre-production since 2008 and actors have voiced the script.
- Therefore, I have proven that Brave is notable due to all the significant coverage in reliable sources and fame, importance and popularity of Pixar films per WP:NFF. Furthermore that animation is presumed underway per standard Pixar procedure, therefore the animated film is under production.Bgwhite (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no you haven't. Your quotes from WP:NFF don't actually appear in WP:NFF. Perhaps you're confused about what WP:NFF is. It's only the short section of that guideline which refers to future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. Secondly, your comment that animated films aren't subject to WP:NFF because there is no principal photography is wikilawyering. While WP:NFF doesn't specifically deal with animated films (something I'm currently trying to change), the spirit of the guideline is clear. Until the film is clearly out of pre-production, it's not notable unless the pre-production process itself is so unique and interesting that it can be shown to be notable. SnottyWong gab 02:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I give up. If you can't "see" the quotes in the WP:NFF, WP:N and click on the link for the definition of "principal photography" in the WP:NFF... Plus now saying it's not the "spirit" of the guideline when you have been saying show me the letter and I did show you the letter.... this will go nowhere. Bgwhite (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Let's let the closing admin decide. SnottyWong confer 04:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I give up. If you can't "see" the quotes in the WP:NFF, WP:N and click on the link for the definition of "principal photography" in the WP:NFF... Plus now saying it's not the "spirit" of the guideline when you have been saying show me the letter and I did show you the letter.... this will go nowhere. Bgwhite (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no you haven't. Your quotes from WP:NFF don't actually appear in WP:NFF. Perhaps you're confused about what WP:NFF is. It's only the short section of that guideline which refers to future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. Secondly, your comment that animated films aren't subject to WP:NFF because there is no principal photography is wikilawyering. While WP:NFF doesn't specifically deal with animated films (something I'm currently trying to change), the spirit of the guideline is clear. Until the film is clearly out of pre-production, it's not notable unless the pre-production process itself is so unique and interesting that it can be shown to be notable. SnottyWong gab 02:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Bgwhite. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep meets WP:N with sources in article. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I fail to see what's so confusing about Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films: "the primary notability guideline is that the article should not exist prior to a verified confirmation of the start of the film shoot," or, in this case, the beginning of the process of animation. Until a reference is found confirming that point has been reached, this article is about a non-notable topic and should not exist. The fact that this is a Pixar film is irrelevant, the fact that this is an animated film is irrelevant, the fact that the script is finished and actors have been cast is irrelevant, and the fact that there are sources is irrelevant as well. Just as Notability (music) takes precedence over the general guideline in articles about musicians, the guideline about future films takes precedence here over the general guideline. There is even a Pixar film, Newt, that appears to have been cancelled after animation began. Clearly, then, we cannot assume anything about this film's status. Xenon54 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- that's a pretty ironic example to use, as Newt still has an entry on wikipedia, despite having apparently been cancelled. I think the "animation started" and "single frame of animation completed" reference points for validity of an animated work are laughably outdated...in fact they were largely outdated before wikipedia was founded. Modern digitally animated films don't have a "single frame" of finished "film" until very, very far along in the process. But you surely know this. [[4]] Regardless, a film could be cancelled or simply finished and never released at ANY point in production. Are we going to suggest that something like, oh I don't know, a film about JFK or Michael Jackson or the Pope that is completed but never released doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry? I believe that Newt DOES deserve its wikipedia page for the simple fact that it apparently was a Pixar feature film that got cancelled. That in and of itself is more relevant than most films that are actually released in the US every year. Why don't we delete the page for the probably-upcoming "Hobbit films", since they don't even have a director, much less a financially viable production company funding the project? I notice that page isn't slated for deletion. And yet I am willing to bet that Brave is much further along than The Hobbit. Benpatient (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Secondly, Newt (film) will likely be merged/redirected. Thirdly, Wikipedia has clear standards for whether or not articles should be kept or deleted. Upcoming Pixar films are not automatically notable, nor are they notable just because you think they should be. There are clear standards on the notability of future films. These standards exist for a reason. Please read them. Thanks. SnottyWong squeal 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite unlikely actually, as a cancellation of a project can itself have proper notability per WP:N and WP:NFF's allowing that films "that were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". And as that quotation is part of NFF, and as that failuure to complete is notable per WP:GNG, one really cannot use the circular logic of pointing back at NFF in an attempt to repudiate what NFF itself already quite clearly and specifically allows. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This film is only 2 years in the future. Georgia guy (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm with Georgia guy, it's only 2 years into the future, and I think that it's notable enough. [[[User:TuneyLoon|TuneyLoon]] 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: The film is in the production stage. Quoting Mike Venturini, one of Pixar's animation supervisors, "we’re a couple of years in, with a couple of years to go". [5]. – Nurmsook! talk... 02:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think you should keep the film page because development is still young and you should give it a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irockpolo's (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Common sense, improving the project and the TOPIC meeting WP:GNG... that... and there being far too much content to reasonably merge elsewhere. But a bit surprised no one even considered incubation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Far too much content? This article is a stub! 4 sentences max... SnottyWong prattle 16:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pixar in an upcoming projects section until it actuall has significant coverage in reliable sources, and it is confirmed to be in production beyond the rough scetches and what not. Yes, it is Pixar, but that doesn't negate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. A lot can happen in two years, and as it is now, the project itself is not notable. Having the Pixar name attached is no reason to presume it is notable when it is not even in full production yet (as confirmed by reliable sources). Remember, notability is not inherited. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While in some cases a merge is worth considering... it must be remembered that each and every guideline begins with the specific caution that each should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception... and it is through consensus that editors create those exceptions. This topic has its multiples of multiples of ongoing and in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources stretching from 1995 through 2010,[6][7] and per that coverage, guideline recognizes this topic could be "worthy of notice". With respects, the merging of some minor content or reference to the Pixar article does not appear to what consensus is indicating in this case... as it would seem that this could be an instance where consensus of participating editors might wish this article be one of those allowed exceptions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Does this in pre-production film have extended coverage in non-trival sources? Yes it does, ergo Keep.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jackyd101. While I can see why it was nominated, the coverage makes this case fall outside any normal case.--Milowent (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nurmsook, Pixar films take awhile to be made, and it's already in the processs - Epson291 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources which indicate that this film is currently in the process of being produced, as required by WP:NFF. SnottyWong prattle 16:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your wishes to the contrary, consensus of participating editors may decide that the extensive coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources from 1995 through 2010, and the imminence of its release, might just merit this being one of those guideline encouraged exceptions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it matters because this AfD is all but in the bag, but there really isn't "extensive coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources", and absolutely no evidence of the "imminence of its release". All of the sources in this article are trivial mentions, and no one has brought any additional sources to this AfD. Just because Pixar has a marketing machine which builds hypes for its films years before they are released doesn't imply notability. As we have seen with Newt, Pixar films are capable of being cancelled just like any other film. You can't assume this one will be released just because most of the other films Pixar has announced have been released. There is no reason to jump the gun and create an article like this until there is actual evidence that money is being spent on the production of the film, and it actually has a decent chance at seeing the light of day. But, I digress, since as I already said, this AfD is all but over and apparently the inclusionists don't see it the way I do. Oh well. Hopefully the film does get released so that we don't have to waste time arguing to delete this article again. Cheers. SnottyWong yak 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In Wikipedia, and not surprisingly, nothing is ever "in the bag"... but is hoped, if found by consensus that this particular topic might be decided as one of the consensus accepted exceptions, that such consensus might be respected. Not wishing to continue with WP:WAX, but the Newt article's AFD did not have as much support, nor as much discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it matters because this AfD is all but in the bag, but there really isn't "extensive coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources", and absolutely no evidence of the "imminence of its release". All of the sources in this article are trivial mentions, and no one has brought any additional sources to this AfD. Just because Pixar has a marketing machine which builds hypes for its films years before they are released doesn't imply notability. As we have seen with Newt, Pixar films are capable of being cancelled just like any other film. You can't assume this one will be released just because most of the other films Pixar has announced have been released. There is no reason to jump the gun and create an article like this until there is actual evidence that money is being spent on the production of the film, and it actually has a decent chance at seeing the light of day. But, I digress, since as I already said, this AfD is all but over and apparently the inclusionists don't see it the way I do. Oh well. Hopefully the film does get released so that we don't have to waste time arguing to delete this article again. Cheers. SnottyWong yak 22:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your wishes to the contrary, consensus of participating editors may decide that the extensive coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources from 1995 through 2010, and the imminence of its release, might just merit this being one of those guideline encouraged exceptions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Black swan story
- Black swan story (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'm nominating this article for deletion as I believe it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films), and I don't really think any amount of work can save it. I have the greatest respect for the men who fought at Arnhem, but I don't believe that a short film about the making of a music video about an event in the battle, is itself independently notable enough to warrant an article. The article seems to fail every criteria that would support inclusion in Wikipedia:Notability (films), except perhaps point 5. Even then I don't believe there are sufficient reliable sources to back it up (note that only 3 of the 7 sources for the article are actually about the film, and only one is what I would describe as detailed enough). Any information here is better placed in one of the following articles; John Pott (British Army officer), Athlete (band), Black Swan (album) or Black Swan Song (if it gets expanded into an article, its currently just a redirect). Added to which, it would appear that the maker of the film himself created this article, and it seems a stretch to imagine that anyone else would have written it. Essentially I think it comes down to common sense. Hundreds of documentaries are released each day and very very few of them, of higher notability than this, would warrant an article. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, perhaps with a suitable redirect to one of the above articles. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NF per nom. EyeSerenetalk 20:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Black Swan Story' will be featuring in a Learning Pack, CD-Rom/ DVD, funded by The Legion and distributed in schools and learning centres from October 2010. The producers of the learning package extimate that will be '2.5 million young people accessing our resources'. I hope that with the information I have added you can reconsider deleting this page. - Richard Edkins. The film's imdb listing is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675822/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.111.60.15 (talk) 22:39, 8 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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dorothy of Oz (film)
- Dorothy of Oz (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)
Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication in the article, its sources, a google search, or a google news search that the creation of this film has begun. Also, the author of the article appears to have a major COI with this article, as evidenced from the talk page. SnottyWong talk 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment The film's iMDB page and its home site indicate that it is currently filming.Hence, it appears to pass WP:NFF.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The website lists the status as "in production", which is somewhat vague. Also, the WP:NFF guideline is based on whether the film has started principal photography, which in the case of animated films, is somewhat irrelevant. So, my question is: are the comments on the film's website (a primary source) and/or IMDB (an unreliable source) enough to substantiate that the film is actually in the process of being created (i.e. the animation process has started)? I'm honestly asking because I don't know. SnottyWong chatter 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NFF includes instructions on how a film topic might be found notable if meeting other notability guidelines, completed or not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct -- but the other notability guidelines are intended to apply only for projects that have "already begun shooting." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." The SNGs are set to allow editors further means by which to "presume" that sources toward notability may or may not exist, and are not set to over-ride WP:N itself, as notability is dependent upon a TOPIC having coverage in reliable sources... and the more coverage, the better. Begun or not, an article discussing a film as a TOPIC, may be found notable if the TOPIC meets the WP:GNG. I can share examples if wished, but films that have never shot one frame can, as TOPICs, be found notable through meeting GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be honest -- I'm usually pretty trusting of iMDB for basic production details, but in this case their listing of the project as "filming" is, indeed, a vaguery. News sources suggest that sketches of the characters were unveiled only within the past week. Granted, the argument can be made that this constitutes "the animation process," but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Either way, I'm going to strike my Keep vote while I ponder this. There's a good amount of evidence that the production itself might be relatively notable, so there's a chance it passes muster either way, but it's not the obvious "uhm, dude, it's filming" that I initially thought it was. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Follow the Google Brick Road: [8]. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid argument for keeping the article. See WP:GHITS. SnottyWong talk 03:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "ghits" bring up a lot of significant media coverage that fits into the reliable sourcing requirements that these articles require. 23:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regent of the Seatopians (talk • contribs)
- Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. WP:GHITS clearly explains that just saying "there are a lot of google hits" is an argument to avoid, because it doesn't prove anything. SnottyWong babble 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link he provided was quite helpful in making determination of possible notability per WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. WP:GHITS clearly explains that just saying "there are a lot of google hits" is an argument to avoid, because it doesn't prove anything. SnottyWong babble 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After some thought and searching, I really can't find evidence in reliable sources that the animation equivalent of "principal photography" (which I would consider actual animation work plus voice work with actors -- any work that brings some relative finality to the cast and crew) has actually commenced. All we have is a primary source indicating that it is "in production," with suspiciously recent (within the last few days) release of "character sketches." This, in the absence of reliable sourcing that says otherwise, strongly suggests that the level of certainty looked for in WP:NFF with its principal photography guideline does not yet exist. That said, this topic is almost entirely certain to pass NFF with flying colors at some point in the future, possibly in the relatively near future. But, until then, my opinion is that it's a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A film production may be be found notable if having significant coverage in reliable sources. While indeed, many unmade or in-production films lack such coverage and fail both NFF and GNG, that does not seem to be the case here. A smattering of search results that would seem to allow presumption of notability for the prduction per meeting the NFF caveat about other notability guidelines are offered below. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That caveat is specifically for films that have "already begun shooting." That is a direct quote from NFF. This film hasn't begun shooting. Ipso facto, the caveat does not apply. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have learned that the caveat is one set to allow editors further means by which to presume that sources toward notability may or may not exist. Notability is not dependent upon the presumptions allowed in the SNGs... it is dependent upon having coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you haven't read the first sentence of WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. I don't see any ambiguity there. SnottyWong talk 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is far more to NFF than that single sentence, and your not seeing amiguity, does not make it go away. Your insisting that a single sentence out of several in an SNG absolutely overrules WP:N is unfounded,as while SNGs support WP:N in their offering considerations as enouragement that editors be diligent in finding coverage, they do not replace it, nor replace the GNG. And your continually pointing at one part of NFF in an attempt to repudiate the rest of that same guideline is equally unhelpful, as NFF also allows that a production may itself be found notable through significant coverage in reliable sources. However, your arguments seem rendered moot in the face of the animation phase in this production of this animated film having begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources prove that the film is out of pre-production? SnottyWong babble 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is far more to NFF than that single sentence, and your not seeing amiguity, does not make it go away. Your insisting that a single sentence out of several in an SNG absolutely overrules WP:N is unfounded,as while SNGs support WP:N in their offering considerations as enouragement that editors be diligent in finding coverage, they do not replace it, nor replace the GNG. And your continually pointing at one part of NFF in an attempt to repudiate the rest of that same guideline is equally unhelpful, as NFF also allows that a production may itself be found notable through significant coverage in reliable sources. However, your arguments seem rendered moot in the face of the animation phase in this production of this animated film having begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you haven't read the first sentence of WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. I don't see any ambiguity there. SnottyWong talk 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have learned that the caveat is one set to allow editors further means by which to presume that sources toward notability may or may not exist. Notability is not dependent upon the presumptions allowed in the SNGs... it is dependent upon having coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That caveat is specifically for films that have "already begun shooting." That is a direct quote from NFF. This film hasn't begun shooting. Ipso facto, the caveat does not apply. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the basis of no principal photography (as defined by Ginsengbomb above) means no production. As others have mentioned, the recent release of "sketches" doesn't help. All I have been able to find is this in Playbill, ( and similarly this in Broadwayworld WP:RS?,) which state that Bryan Adams has started working on the songs. "Bryan Adams is currently moving forward on the first songs and lyrics for the film." While I am not well-versed in animated films, it would seem to me that the songs would be written (and recorded) before the animation begins. (Maybe its possible to start animating some non-musical parts, but I would think the songs set the tone for the whole film. JMO) Production is scheduled to finish in late 2011. I know that animation takes a long time to complete, but it still seems like very early stages to me. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, the topic appears to meet the other notability guidelines as specifcally allowed in WP:NFF. Had it not the coverage it does it would have failed. Having the coverage, it passes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the reliable information on the production found above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What information? A Google search? SnottyWong verbalize 03:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the google (news) search. Big difference that someone who nominates articles for deletion should notice. You may have to hover over the link, or click it depending on your browser. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google News search doesn't actually prove anything. If there is a particular article that you think proves the notability of the production of this article per WP:NFF, please provide it. SnottyWong confer 04:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are confusing counting links with their content, counting links is not what I did, it was the content of the Google News articles, not the number of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 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)
- (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)
- (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)
- (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)
- (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)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep Coverage beginning in 2007 and continuing through 2010, meets the caveats of WP:NFF and (more importantly to many) the General notability guide: Animation Magazine (1), Broadway World (1), Playbill, Broadway World (2), Fantasy (French), Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Collider, UPI, ... and to lessor but supportive manner in such as Animation Magazine (2), Animation Magazine (3), KMBC, The Guardian, CNN, Cinema Blend, The New York Times. There are more that others have found. These are enough to allow reasonable presumption of notability per guideline, and encourage that the stub article remain to grow and be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The guideline seems pretty clear on this. No principal photography, no article. ("Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. ")
Here is the quote that I think is getting misconstrued in conversation here: "Additionally, 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. " The "production itself is notable" bit refers to films that have already begun shooting. We have no evidence that this film has begun shooting. Hence, it very clearly, objectively fails WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear, but then not clear. As I have recently been enlightened, the SNGs are set in place to allow editors to consider circumstances which might allow a reasonable presumption of sources existing, not to limit WP:N, but set as tools to encourage a search for sources. If sources do not exist, notability is unlikely. If sources DO exist, then notability is likely. But like all SNGs, they all send us back to WP:GNG. It was noted by an editor at another discussion, that "Significant coverage is the touchstone by which notability is tested." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The guideline seems pretty clear on this. No principal photography, no article. ("Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. ")
- Where were you enlightened to this effect? The last thing I see in the Notability chat you directed me to is this, from an admin: "It should always be the case that if a work passes the GNG, it should be included unless specifically excluded by criteria in an SNG." NFF "specifically excludes" this film. By which I mean, if you are correct in saying this, we should immediately invalidate and delete WP:NFF, because it very plainly, by definition, provides criteria to exclude content. It does not provide any "circumstances which might allow a reasonable presumption of sources existing." It's a "no," guidelines, not a "yes" one, if that makes sense. Again, I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of the relationship between SNG and GNG. Many, many SNGs only exclude. WP:BLP1E is an obvious example (although not quite the same as NFF -- BLP1E attempts to predict that actual non-notability of a seemingly notable topic...NFF, to my eyes, does the same, on a temporary basis). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes GNG. Projects might give additional means of passing "notability", but they don't invalidate GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not think you are correct. Either that, or everybody referencing WP:NFF is wrong, because NFF specifically excludes content. It doesn't "give additional means of passing." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment many delete comments above deal with whether or not principle filming has commenced. As this is an animation, and animation and character design has commenced (as shown by release of images as provided in some proferred sources above), it might reasonably be concluded that for an animation, this may be considered the "beginning" of filming... as it does specifically involve particpation of director, artists, and animators. Such actual artistic production work in creating an animated film is not pre-production... it IS production, and voicework by the various contracted actors will be among the final steps in production, before moving to post-production. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is definitely a quirk worth considering in this AfD. My own opinion is that the animation equivalent ought to be that voice work has commenced, insofar as the NFF guidelines appear to be anticipating potentially huge changes in cast, crew, etc., if a film hasn't commenced "principal photography." But that's very much my opinion. I understand you are or are considering bringing this to the folks at WikiProject Animation, and would be very curious to hear their opinion on what I imagine is not an altogether uncommon issue.
Also, I wish to clarify my above Delete vote -- I am absolutely fine with any number of alternatives to deletion in this case, including Redirect/Merge (to some target that I have no considered yet :) or Incubation. The content is fine, my issue is with the current independent notability of the topic. I am confident the topic will be very clearly notable at some point in the future, possibly in the not-at-all-distant future, so any solution involving keeping the content is ideal. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WP:NFF has been updated to include a sentence clarifying the notability criteria for future animated films. SnottyWong chat 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snottywong personally changing a guideline[9] to support his arguments during an ongoing AFD is change that might better merit an RFC to gain wider consensus. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The change was discussed on the talk page and has support from other members of that discussion - nor is it a major change, it is simply clarifying where the equivalent line of production is in an animated film, versus regular films as they don't have "principal photography". Please remember to assume good faith.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I was unaware of any discussion between the several editors until his change was announced here. Had I known, I might have myself participated in that discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you weren't invited because you seem to disagree with me on just about everything. Whether or not that's intentional, I couldn't say. In any case, please do follow AnmaFinotera's advice and assume good faith. If I were trying to change the guideline in bad faith purely to support my arguments at an AfD, do you think I would disclose that at the AfD? I changed the guideline to clarify the notability threshold, and so that wikilawyers can't claim that WP:NFF doesn't apply to animated films because there is no principal photography. SnottyWong express 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is definitely a quirk worth considering in this AfD. My own opinion is that the animation equivalent ought to be that voice work has commenced, insofar as the NFF guidelines appear to be anticipating potentially huge changes in cast, crew, etc., if a film hasn't commenced "principal photography." But that's very much my opinion. I understand you are or are considering bringing this to the folks at WikiProject Animation, and would be very curious to hear their opinion on what I imagine is not an altogether uncommon issue.
- Incubate seems to have some significant coverage, and it appears to at least be in production at some stage, however other than confirming its started and who is involved, what else is there to say. Incubate until it is fully confirmed that this animation is in full production, not the rough start process, with actual final animation being worked on and the final voice tracks being recorded. I was going to say merge to the base novel article, but it apparently does not have one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not adverse to Incubation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (2011 film)
- The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (2011 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)
Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication in the article, its sources, a google search, or a google news search that the creation of this film has begun. SnottyWong verbalize 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find any evidence that this film has commenced principal photography, hence not passing WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am also completely fine with Redirect/Merge and Incubate as outcomes -- I am fairly confident that this topic will be beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt notable at some point in the future, so there's no reason to remove the content that currently exists altogether. Just wanted to make that clear. Thanks for the nudge, MQS. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above: no verification that principal photography has begun. Cliff smith talk 23:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also support merging verified info about this project to director John Boorman. Cliff smith talk 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also support incubation, as discussed below. Cliff smith talk 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A new film based of one of the most famous books of U.S. literature, directed by John Boorman (a major film artist) and packed with plenty of news coverage: [10]. Even the Scarecrow could figure this one out! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline about the notability of future films, as cited by the nominator, states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Also, a "Google test" isn't always indicative of a subject having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Until this project becomes a production, it can be covered at the article of the project's reported director (John Boorman) and at Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz. Cliff smith talk 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Google test" brings up a lot of high-profile coverage of this upcoming film. Your argument makes no sense. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. Also, please read WP:GHITS for an explanation of Cliff smith's argument. SnottyWong squeal 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was saying that the results of a Google search for something aren't always indicative of something being worthy of inclusion here. A Google search can return trivial mentions in "high-profile" sources. If it's just saying that some director is working on a project which is supposed to be released in the near future, that's not really significant coverage. Also, we shouldn't make the assumption that "because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material." (Yes, that's also from WP:NFF.) Cliff smith talk 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Google test" brings up a lot of high-profile coverage of this upcoming film. Your argument makes no sense. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There appears to be enough details in the existing coverage which trumps the movie guideline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly which details are you referring to? WP:NFF is quite clear in that future films should not have articles until principal photography begins, unless the production itself is notable for some reason. Are you implying that you have sources which show that the production itself, independent of the film, is notable? If so, please let us know. SnottyWong confabulate 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ SW: There is a bit more to WP:NFF that is not being mentioned. It specifically advises that such articles might merit inclusion if recieving coverage to satisfy other notability guidelines, completed or not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding of the guideline is that it's less concerned with details than it is with two things: 1) the reliability/permanence of these details and, more importantly 2) Is any notability reflected by existing coverage going to be permanent? In other words, is this production itself so plainly notable based on reliably sourced coverage that, even if this movie never actually exists, will it still be a notable topic? The guidelines suggest that only extreme cases pass the very easily applied "principal photography" hurdle -- is this film really an extreme case? Or is it just a movie that is in pre-production? There are a lot of those, and some of them are based on enormously notable sources. That this potential movie is based on a great book does nothing to establish the production's notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. Notability is determined by a topic meeting WP:GNG, and as per my !vote below, the topic so far, per the GNG and even as a merge/redirect if not a straight keep, merits inclusion somewhere. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly which details are you referring to? WP:NFF is quite clear in that future films should not have articles until principal photography begins, unless the production itself is notable for some reason. Are you implying that you have sources which show that the production itself, independent of the film, is notable? If so, please let us know. SnottyWong confabulate 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep per meeting NFF, or pPer WP:ATD, either Incubate as worth delevoping away from article space, or Redirect/Merge sourced information to director John Boorman without prejudice toward recreation. And a note for clarification: WP:NFF does not call for automatic deletion of all articles in such cases, but specifically advises that such articles might merit inclusion if recieving coverage to satisfy other notability guidelines... and that event is not a "rare" as in being implied, and coverage as provided by Houston Chronicle, The Windsor StarMinneapolis Star-Tribune, Animation Magazine, Fantasy Magazine, Boston Globe, Cineuropa, Fantasy, Nina People, Showbizz, and MSNBC would seem to assure that the information has a place within these pages somewhere. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, it's not as though all mention of this project should be removed from everywhere altogether. I could understand an argument to WP:IAR and make an exception for a yet-to-be-produced film project to have its own article if information about that project was creating an undue weight situation at the article(s) about its subject material—but that is not the case here. Presently, it belongs at John Boorman and Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz. No prejudice towards recreation here, either, by the way. Cliff smith talk 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, as with the Dorothy of Oz discussion, NFF only advises that films be checked against other notability guidelines if the film can be shown, in reliable sources, to have "already begun shooting." This film has not been shown to have begun shooting, hence the direction regarding other notability sources does not apply. NFF very clearly states that unless a film has commenced principal photography it should not have an article, and there is no exception to this direction anywhere in NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:N is the mother and all the rest of the SNGs her children... not intended to supplant the mother, only to supplement her. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. NFF, is one of the children of WP:N... and all her children rely a topic's meeting WP:GNG. If the GNG is met, it is met. Not having begun shooting, or ever shooting at all, does not affect how a topic
itself being notable andworthy of inclusion in some manner. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Look, I think the bottom line is that while this subject does merit inclusion in some manner, that manner is at the article about its director, for now. It should not have its own article yet. Cliff smith talk 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I aggree and added thoughts toward possibility of WP:Incubation accordingly, while striking my NFF keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I think the bottom line is that while this subject does merit inclusion in some manner, that manner is at the article about its director, for now. It should not have its own article yet. Cliff smith talk 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate per Michael; or merge to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz though its adaptation section leaves much to be desired, until such time as it is in full production and this is confirmed in third-party, reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's still early in this film's life cycle, but there is enough coverage to justify notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Toxic Avenger 5: The Toxic Twins
- The Toxic Avenger 5: The Toxic Twins (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)
Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication in the article, its sources, a google search, or a google news search that the creation of this film has begun. SnottyWong confabulate 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - this film will probably get made, but we can't be sure that it will, and we don't need to create an article until it has been. Robofish (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that the film has commenced principal photography. Fails WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NFF. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:33, 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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Must Be The Place
- This Must Be The Place (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)
Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. SnottyWong communicate 20:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - no need for an article on this film as of yet, when it hasn't started filming. Robofish (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Incubate until NFF is passed Article itself indicates that filming is set to start in August, 2010. Fails WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either Incubate as worth delevoping,
Keep per meeting WP:NFF,or Redirect/merge sourced information to writer/director Paolo Sorrentino without prejudice toward recreation. And a note for clarification: WP:NFF does not call for automatic deletion of all articles in such cases, but specifically advises that such articles might merit inclusion if recieving coverage to satisfy other notability guidelines... and IFTN, Variety, Buffalo News, Cineuropa, Deadline, Newnotizie, La Repubblica, Gazeta do Sul, Showbizz, Daily News & Analysis, Digital Spy, and AHN, among many others, would seem indicative that this merits inclusion somewhere within these pages. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, I am seeing NFF being misread in all of these conversations. The guideline does not allow for exceptions in the case of films that haven't begun principal photography. It only allows for exceptions for films that have (direct quote) "already begun shooting." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. NFF, is one of the children if WP:N... and all her children rely first and foremost on a topic's meeting WP:GNG. If the GNG is met it is met.... and even then, all the guideline suggests is no seperate article if seen failing. Meeting the GNG would be indicative that the information worthy of being included somewhere... such as the director's article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up I have struck the "keep" part of my opinion above. Coverage meeting WP:GNG encourages that the topic might merit either being set aside for additional work, or merged/redirected to the article on the director. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:18, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Lionshare
- The Lionshare (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)
2nd Afd, first resulted in no consensus. Non-notable film, fails WP:MOVIE, no V/RS listed. GregJackP (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Absolutely no reason to delete this, there are numerous reliable sources listed in the first AfD.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - where? #1 - Rougecinema is a user written site, not a reliable source. #2 - Critic's Word is a blog, not reliable. #3 - The Independent Critic is a blog, not reliable. #4 - Torrent Freak, blog, not reliable. #5 - FrostClick, blog, not reliable. GHits/GNews have not turned up any reliable sources. GregJackP (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a blog does not automatically disqualify a source as unreliable. And I think the IMDB page is quite reliable.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:RS. Blogs are not reliable per the standards, with very limited exceptions. GregJackP (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this is one of those exceptions. The sources listed are critical reviews posted on movie review sites in a professional capacity.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this is one of those exceptions. The sources listed are critical reviews posted on movie review sites in a professional capacity.
- Being a blog does not automatically disqualify a source as unreliable. And I think the IMDB page is quite reliable.
- Delete - fails WP:MOVIE all sources are trivial. Please read the guideline which excludes: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database" GtstrickyTalk or C 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is listed in the IMDB, and those reviews do provide critical commentary.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline exludes IMBD as a notability source. Read the guideline and see if you can find some souces to support notability. I can not. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NF - IMDb is specifically excluded from reliable sources. GregJackP (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I misread your phrasing on the IMDB, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the sources in the article provide critical commentary on the film and aren't trivial.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Which doesn't change the fact that you need to show notability by verifiable and reliable sources. I can't find any, and I've looked. GregJackP (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my earlier comment; the sources in the article do meet the criteria of reliability.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my earlier comment; the sources in the article do meet the criteria of reliability.
- I misread your phrasing on the IMDB, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the sources in the article provide critical commentary on the film and aren't trivial.
- But it is listed in the IMDB, and those reviews do provide critical commentary.
- Comment: This article meets the criteria of WP:NF by being "featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema" and "'taught' as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program" based on 'The Lionshare' is academic which is reliable per WP:SELFPUB.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Further comment: This film has been reviewed by someone who is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (WP:RS).
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: This film has been reviewed by someone who is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (WP:RS).
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's an award-winning indie film reviewed/discussed by several reliable sources. Sure, the article may need more sourcing and work, but a poorly-written or incomplete article does not make the subject non-notable. I'm going to take a look and see if I can fix up the article a bit, hopefully that will help. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per my !vote in the first AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources. Reviews given do not appear to be from reliable sources.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I don't see any reason for deletion of this article. IMDB is a reliable source. bcartolo (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to read WP:NF, IMDB is not so reliable, and as it's a database it cannot be used to establish notability (it is considered trivial coverage).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Fails WP:MOVIE as significant reliable sources independent of the subject cannot be found for this movie. I went through three different search engines and reviewed 300 listings. IMDb seems to be its reference and not the one I would hang my article's hat for notability or sourcing on. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:19, 7 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) 23:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Midnight Curfew
- The Midnight Curfew (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)
Non-notable unauthorized documentary. – Zntrip 04:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, "fake" dvd. CTJF83 pride 04:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - gets a few notability points since apparantly MTV released the name of the film as the name of their new album creating a buzz with their fans. In the end the film fails WP:MOVIE. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect sourced stub to My Chemical Romance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:15, 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, 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
- 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.[11] 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
- 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 [12], and XBIZ [13]. 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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]
Pioneer One
![]() | 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). [14] —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: [15] and [16]; 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[17], Geekosystem[18], TorrentFreak[19][20]. 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. [21]). --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 [22]. 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.[23]. --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)
- 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)
- 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.[24] 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.[25] 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
- 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
- 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