1008:
particularly with horror films - there would not be enough depth of coverage to justify inclusion. The main keep arguments here are arguing for inclusion based on the amount without really taking into account the content of the sourcing. It's not like the sources are written all that differently content-wise or like any of this has info on the production (other than it being in post) or even a review. There's just not enough out there to show a depth of coverage. That's why I think this should be put in draftspace. I think I'm probably one of the more liberal people when it comes to film notability, particularly when it comes to horror, but this just isn't there. It's just not ready yet. There needs to be at least
965:. Part of the issue with establishing notability for films is that we need to be able to establish that the production has received coverage. This is usually done by news articles reporting on the start of filming, announcements of stars coming on to the film, and so on. But with this there's nothing. No coverage of any type until the announcement that the film will release and that it's in post production. This is kind of surprising given the names involved (Tobin Bell for one). The coverage all says effectively the same thing, to the point where it is very, very obvious that they're based off the same press releases.
1013:
social media about this during filming, that's how little there was out there when I looked. Having an article is just premature at this point. This could release by the end of the year and have a ton of coverage... or it could sit for a few more years on the shelf, completed but not seeing the light of day due to the typical industry stuff that happens with films. We can't judge it based on potential future notability, just on what's here now - which isn't enough in my opinion to establish notability.
394:, I agree with what you say in some things but I do not understand why drafity if it is practically 100% sure that the film will have more notability very soon. Also, under the argument of imagining that hypothetical case, the truth is that a great majority of existing articles should be moved to drafts because only mega-productions or films with renowned directors would be taken into account because it is this kind of productions that have hundreds of articles.
380:
296:
971:
a keep but this is just a bit too soon. If this were to sit in post-production hell (which happens A LOT) then this coverage wouldn't be enough to justify it passing NFILM or NFF. TBH, this is fairly common for horror films. They tend to fly under the radar and then spring forth almost fully formed once it's time to release, gain more funding, or sell. This can just sit for a little while until more coverage becomes available.
941:
relatively rare to find coverage that would firmly establish this, which is why so many horror films don't have articles until fairly late in the game, typically after they're released. Offhand there doesn't look to be coverage to show where production is notable - there needs to be some other details other than "it's in post production" to really establish this. If I have time I'll try to see what I can do, though.
935:. To really establish that this is notable, the film needs to have coverage of the production in some form or fashion. As someone who writes very, very regularly about horror films on Knowledge, this is often not doable with most films because there aren't that many outlets that really care to report regularly on horror media. Sometimes if something goes mainstream enough it will, but it's never a guarantee.
347:. And having an international distributor also doesn't matter as the first part of NFO is being widely distributed with at least two reviews. NFF says filming must have started, but it also says that the production must be notable. Thus far, I am only seeing one independent, reliable report. Casting reports are very rarely independent and these (or at least the one linked) seems to fail
724:
635:
616:
565:
517:
717:
710:
680:
673:
666:
628:
576:
525:
1037:
was told was that the film is in post, has the specified actors, and was purchased, but not anything about where it was filmed or anything along those lines. NFF is pretty much hanging on a single sentence mentioning post-production, which isn't enough given that it's based on multiple outlets reporting on the same press release.
1036:
other than what was in that single press release or what they took from the outlet(s) that reported on said press release. If there was something, anything out there to give more depth of coverage then that would be great - and I definitely looked - but there just wasn't anything. Ultimately all that
799:
is saying already in a paragraph--to better articulate for an interested reader what it meant if they want to read instead of ask. The essay is not important to the argument at all. The point was that they are not unrelated to the subject as it is being put out by them—JoBlo straight says it, BD says
357:
Of course, if the production was notable and there are reports out there saying something like "Peyton List was a dream to work with" or "The crew had to work 22 hours a day to get this done, and everyone hates ___" or whatever, I'd be happy to adjust my !vote, but until then, there's no real rush to
970:
The issue here is that while there is a brief flurry of coverage, it doesn't really show any depth of coverage because it's all pretty much the same. If some were slightly different and went over the locations or if there were announcements about stars coming on, then it might be easier to argue for
1012:
other coverage to really help establish how this meets NFF. I mean, if there were at least an interview somewhere that would be something but there isn't. There's not much out there other than what was put in the press release that was sent out. I don't think that any of the cast or crew posted on
940:
Now as far as the existing coverage goes, this says that the film is in post, but doesn't really give us anything about the production itself. For example, there's nothing really about where it was filmed, when, or other important info needed to establish that the production was notable. It's
362:
coverage. I'm 99% sure this will be notable soon, but I don't see enough yet. Pretend there is a fire and all footage is destroyed, and they cut their losses after insurance pays out, never to try again. Is what we have enough to say it was a notable production? Not yet, for me at least.
777:
as a reason to discount a source. Essays aren't guidelines, anyone can write an essay and they have no weight or bearing on official discussions. It is not surprising to me that multiple sources will report on something once the information is made public, so calling that "churn" anyway is
1007:
It's not about the length, it's about the fact that the existent coverage all states content taken from the same press release. There's no depth of coverage here. If something were to happen and this were to sink into post-development hell, which can and does happen extremely frequently -
433:: The 5 sources in the article are enough to pass GNG clearly. Reliable, significant coverage that is independent of the source. The rest is irrelevant to an AFD. The length and/or quality of the article is an issue for the talk page and for future editors to improve upon.
327:- It seems that the nom tried this, but perhaps if there is wider consensus behind it, it will stick a little longer? To ensure this, you'd probably have to (a) force it to go through AfC (some will cringe), or (b) just wait for at least two reviews per
914:: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." What is the rush?
773:: You are inventing reasons to dismiss sources that don't follow GNG. Labelling sources as "non-independent" despite at least three of them being unrelated to each other, and unrelated to the subject. You've also quoted an
241:
279:
as no indication out of pre-production and that principal photography has started. This was moved to Draft space to incubate, which was correct for this but rejected by the author.
306:
that the film is in post-production phase, from what I see the person who opened this discussion did not even bother to read the links. It is also the prequel to a film known as
235:
1032:
Essentially, it's not the length of the article, it's the fact that all of the available coverage is based on a single press release. The outlets can't give any more details
482:
202:
351:
being churn of primary source claims. An independent casting report would mean a reporter dug in and uncovered something unannounced that was later confirmed.
861:
149:
134:
335:. Deadline reports that it's in post-production--OK, that's one potentially reliable piece, but being in post-production doesn't automatically meet
175:
170:
993:: How long an article might be has nothing to do with if it's notable or not. This article while passing GNG might only need to be a 30 word stub.
179:
748:
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using
162:
256:
800:
they're just repeating
Deadline, and FilmInk doesn't give a writer because that's common for press release. This falls under what
223:
129:
122:
17:
408:
You're absolutely right. If you see them, you could nominate them, but it's hard to comb through them all unless it's in the
303:
96:
752:
399:
343:
notability requirements. Being a prequel to another film doesn't have any relevance to this film since notability is
315:
217:
143:
139:
1051:
1027:
1002:
985:
955:
923:
898:
883:
873:
852:
832:
817:
787:
456:
442:
421:
403:
372:
319:
288:
104:
92:
1072:
1044:
1020:
978:
948:
213:
166:
40:
998:
808:
for exclusion. Regardless, I doubt I'll sway you, but I will remove the essay, and let the community decide. -
783:
438:
792:
I'm happy to remove the essay reference if that is distracting. It was only intended to expound on what the
487:
284:
263:
395:
344:
332:
311:
1068:
894:
68:
36:
1038:
1014:
972:
942:
492:
158:
110:
100:
994:
793:
779:
620:
569:
434:
348:
307:
249:
229:
280:
88:
865:
809:
470:
448:
413:
389:
364:
272:
118:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1067:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
919:
805:
379:
336:
295:
355:
seems good for verifying info, but there is zero prose, so it cannot fulfil NFSOURCES.
869:
813:
452:
417:
368:
77:
911:
498:
409:
340:
328:
276:
82:
72:
67:
There exists consensus to discount some sources for overlapping coverage (and likely
61:
53:
843:
196:
915:
801:
310:
and will be distributed by an internationally known distributor.
1063:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
886:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
835:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
192:
188:
184:
248:
841:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
892:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
358:have this in main space until there is more real
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1075:). No further edits should be made to this page.
860:Note: This discussion has been included in the
71:) when determining whether the production meets
520:3 pieces saying the same thing within a day of
52:. Consensus was that the subject does not meet
262:
8:
447:I think "clearly" is a stretch. See below -
150:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
619:(i.e. no independence as press release per
56:as an unreleased film since the production
859:
463:
331:? I don't quite understand your comment,
862:list of Film-related deletion discussions
588:much is their work, but moot to analyze.
537:Most is quoted mat'l--harder to tell how
638:Same as above, and not even a byline
469:Source assessment table: prepared by
7:
1034:because they haven't been given any
412:feed in order to bring it here. -
24:
722:
715:
708:
678:
671:
664:
633:
626:
614:
574:
563:
523:
515:
378:
294:
135:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
716:
709:
679:
672:
665:
627:
575:
524:
125:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1092:
874:14:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
853:22:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
818:16:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
788:04:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
723:
634:
615:
564:
516:
457:18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
443:16:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
422:18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
404:07:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
373:07:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
320:02:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
289:01:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
1052:16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
1028:16:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
1003:15:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
986:14:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
956:20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
924:06:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
899:01:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
746:
568:each other clearly fails
466:
105:17:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
1065:Please do not modify it.
302:Anyone can clearly read
32:Please do not modify it.
304:in the Deadline article
1042:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
1018:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
976:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
946:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
493:Significant coverage?
123:Articles for deletion
497:Count source toward
159:American Boogeywoman
111:American Boogeywoman
753:source assess table
78:(non-admin closure)
1043:
1019:
977:
947:
901:
876:
855:
848:
763:
762:
759:
705:
661:
611:
560:
512:
509:Bloody Disgusting
396:Bruno Rene Vargas
333:Bruno Rene Vargas
312:Bruno Rene Vargas
140:Guide to deletion
130:How to contribute
80:
1083:
1048:
1041:
1024:
1017:
982:
975:
952:
945:
897:
891:
889:
887:
851:
846:
840:
838:
836:
757:
751:
747:
739:
738:
726:
725:
719:
718:
712:
711:
699:
691:
690:
682:
681:
675:
674:
668:
667:
655:
647:
646:
637:
636:
630:
629:
618:
617:
605:
597:
596:
587:
586:
578:
577:
567:
566:
554:
546:
545:
536:
535:
527:
526:
519:
518:
506:
464:
393:
382:
298:
267:
266:
252:
200:
182:
120:
85:
76:
69:non-independence
34:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1073:deletion review
1046:
1039:ReaderofthePack
1022:
1015:ReaderofthePack
980:
973:ReaderofthePack
950:
943:ReaderofthePack
902:
893:
882:
880:
856:
849:
842:
831:
829:
755:
749:
734:
733:
702:Variety Insight
686:
685:
642:
641:
592:
591:
582:
581:
541:
540:
531:
530:
474:
387:
345:WP:NOTINHERITED
209:
173:
157:
154:
117:
114:
83:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1089:
1087:
1078:
1077:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1030:
995:Macktheknifeau
967:
966:
959:
958:
937:
936:
929:
928:
927:
926:
890:
879:
878:
877:
845:
839:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
780:Macktheknifeau
761:
760:
744:
743:
731:
730:words (prose)
720:
713:
706:
696:
695:
683:
676:
669:
662:
652:
651:
639:
631:
624:
612:
602:
601:
589:
579:
572:
561:
551:
550:
538:
528:
521:
513:
503:
502:
495:
490:
485:
480:
476:
475:
467:
462:
461:
460:
459:
435:Macktheknifeau
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
353:Varity Insight
322:
270:
269:
206:
153:
152:
147:
137:
132:
115:
113:
108:
60:does not meet
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1088:
1076:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1040:
1035:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1016:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
989:
988:
987:
984:
983:
974:
969:
968:
964:
961:
960:
957:
954:
953:
944:
939:
938:
934:
931:
930:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
906:
905:
904:
903:
900:
896:
895:North America
888:
885:
875:
871:
867:
863:
858:
857:
854:
850:
837:
834:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
798:
795:
791:
790:
789:
785:
781:
776:
772:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
754:
745:
742:
737:
732:
729:
721:
714:
707:
703:
698:
697:
694:
689:
684:
677:
670:
663:
659:
654:
653:
650:
645:
640:
632:
625:
622:
613:
609:
604:
603:
600:
595:
590:
585:
580:
573:
571:
562:
558:
553:
552:
549:
544:
539:
534:
529:
522:
514:
510:
505:
504:
500:
496:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
478:
477:
473:
472:
465:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
401:
397:
391:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
361:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
281:Geraldo Perez
278:
274:
265:
261:
258:
255:
251:
247:
243:
240:
237:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
215:
212:
211:Find sources:
207:
204:
198:
194:
190:
186:
181:
177:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
155:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
136:
133:
131:
128:
127:
126:
124:
119:
112:
109:
107:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
79:
74:
70:
65:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1064:
1062:
1045:
1033:
1021:
1009:
990:
979:
962:
949:
932:
907:
881:
830:
796:
794:WP:NFSOURCES
778:ridiculous.
774:
770:
740:
735:
727:
701:
692:
687:
657:
648:
643:
621:WP:NFSOURCES
607:
598:
593:
583:
570:WP:NFSOURCES
556:
547:
542:
532:
508:
483:Independent?
468:
430:
383:
359:
356:
352:
349:WP:NFSOURCES
324:
299:
271:
259:
253:
245:
238:
232:
226:
220:
210:
116:
66:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
360:independent
236:free images
804:defers to
273:WP:TOOSOON
1069:talk page
797:guideline
488:Reliable?
471:User:2pou
37:talk page
1071:or in a
963:Draftify
908:Draftify
884:Relisted
833:Relisted
806:WP:NFILM
658:Deadline
384:Comment:
337:WP:NFILM
325:Draftify
300:Comment:
203:View log
144:glossary
84:Aseleste
50:draftify
39:or in a
1047:(｡◕‿◕｡)
1023:(｡◕‿◕｡)
991:Comment
981:(｡◕‿◕｡)
951:(｡◕‿◕｡)
933:Comment
771:Comment
608:FilmInk
479:Source
308:Monster
242:WP refs
230:scholar
176:protect
171:history
121:New to
916:Kolma8
912:WP:NFF
410:WP:NPP
341:WP:GNG
329:WP:NFO
277:WP:NFF
275:fails
214:Google
180:delete
73:WP:GNG
62:WP:GNG
58:itself
54:WP:NFF
844:MarkH
775:essay
557:JoBlo
257:JSTOR
218:books
197:views
189:watch
185:links
16:<
1010:some
999:talk
920:talk
910:per
870:talk
866:2pou
814:talk
810:2pou
802:WP:N
784:talk
728:Zero
453:talk
449:2pou
439:talk
431:Keep
418:talk
414:2pou
400:talk
390:2pou
369:talk
365:2pou
316:talk
285:talk
250:FENS
224:news
193:logs
167:talk
163:edit
700:5 (
693:Yes
656:4 (
606:3 (
555:2 (
507:1 (
499:GNG
386:Ok
339:or
264:TWL
201:– (
1001:)
922:)
872:)
864:.
847:21
816:)
786:)
756:}}
750:{{
741:No
649:No
623:)
599:No
548:No
501:?
455:)
441:)
420:)
402:)
371:)
318:)
287:)
244:)
195:|
191:|
187:|
183:|
178:|
174:|
169:|
165:|
103:)
99:,
95:|
91:,
81:~
75:.
64:.
997:(
918:(
868:(
812:(
782:(
758:.
736:✘
704:)
688:✔
660:)
644:✘
610:)
594:✘
584:?
559:)
543:✘
533:?
511:)
451:(
437:(
416:(
398:(
392::
388:@
367:(
363:-
314:(
283:(
268:)
260:·
254:·
246:·
239:·
233:·
227:·
221:·
216:(
208:(
205:)
199:)
161:(
146:)
142:(
101:l
97:c
93:e
89:t
87:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.