592:", as principle filming has begun, ended, the film has been through post-production, and will debut before this AFD has run 7 days. The project is completed and not at all speculative.... and as repeated sourcing shows, it is slated for debut on April 16, 2010. And as for the argument of "non-notability" of its filmmakers... Notability is found through coverage of the subject (the film) in reliable sources... not through lack of coverage of involved individuals
496:. And before you rush over to AFD that one, please keep in mind that the subject isn't quite as non-notable as you indicate. Although it's primarily a local event, it has won an Emmy Award, as well as other honors, and obviously is the subject of a forthcoming film. Also, there has already been at least some discussion about that article's notability, and it passed a DYK review about 10 months ago. —
398:
The discussion appears premature, given that the film is upcoming. A couple of newspaper sources for a project at that stage is enough for the benefit of the doubt, given that the article material is there and sourced. A review of notability in, say, a year's time when the film has been released
473:. In addition, it's produced and created by non-notable film makers about a non-notable subject and distributed by a non-notable company. An article about the Freddy Awards would surely be deleted, why should a film about them stick around?
160:
593:
650:
as article crosses both the verifiability and notability thresholds with coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Any "future" concerns are waived by a simple reading of the policy and that the first screening is in
339:, which is the only one used in the article currently. The reprints lend credence, so it's not quite a shoo-in. It looks like that it is screening this Friday, so there will likely be coverage in the ensuing weekend.
487:
The policy you are citing regarding future films refers to films that "that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography". This one doesn't fit the criteria. And actually, there
526:
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
154:
279:
I'm the primary author. This article is still fairly new, was started only a few weeks ago, and so I feel this AFD is premature. As far as other sources, I'll try to dig some up. The
595:
115:
88:
83:
120:
92:
221:
75:
633:
does not rule things out merely because they haven't happened; it rules out speculative events. This is not a speculative film; the sources confirm that. --
287:
above, which even if it's a reprint, shows its receiving wide coverage throughout the country, not just locally. Even putting that aside, the article
175:
142:
17:
555:
508:
373:
315:
79:
136:
444:
per revisions so article now has coverage from multiple sources. I'm sure even more coverage will be forthcoming this weekend.
683:
664:
642:
613:
566:
538:
519:
482:
470:
457:
432:
408:
384:
352:
326:
271:
236:
210:
57:
132:
543:
Which this film is, in my view, due to the presence of reliable, secondary sources. But I understand that you disagree. —
280:
182:
71:
63:
698:
36:
560:
513:
378:
320:
53:
453:
428:
348:
267:
258:. That now makes two separate sources that have significant coverage of this film. Let's look for more coverage.
610:
404:
598:
697:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
148:
49:
638:
550:
503:
368:
310:
493:
603:
419:
I'd like to see more varied sources, and with the screening this Friday, they should be forthcoming.
400:
630:
626:
168:
660:
679:
471:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(films)#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films
232:
206:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
634:
545:
534:
498:
478:
363:
305:
254:
622:
589:
581:
245:
300:
197:
449:
424:
344:
263:
292:
193:
656:
675:
228:
202:
109:
585:
530:
474:
445:
420:
340:
259:
303:
frowns upon (press releases, trailers, advertising, trivial coverage). —
361:
source I previously cited, and will dig up more in the meantime. —
691:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
599:
Just as notability is not inherited, neither is it dis-inherited
674:- additional sources clearly support notability per GNG.
629:(even though I understand that hasn't been cited here).
196:(lacks significant coverage in multiple sources) or the
105:
101:
97:
167:
295:
because it is cited with reliable secondary sources,
181:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
701:). No further edits should be made to this page.
335:I think Cmadler is looking for sources besides
8:
524:Please read further to the part which says
216:
222:list of Film-related deletion discussions
220:: This debate has been included in the
48:per discussion and nominator request.
198:subject specific guidelines for films
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
192:Does not appear to meet either the
24:
492:a Knowledge (XXG) article about
283:just ran the same story as the
1:
194:general notability guideline
72:Most Valuable Players (film)
64:Most Valuable Players (film)
718:
684:12:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
665:03:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
643:00:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
614:23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
567:00:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
539:00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
520:22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
483:21:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
458:11:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
433:20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
409:20:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
385:22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
353:19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
327:19:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
299:the kind of material that
272:19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
237:18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
211:18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
58:12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
694:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
580:per pushing nicely at
584:. With respects to
357:Ok. I added the non-
285:California Chronicle
250:California Chronicle
399:would be in order.
248:is an article from
625:and not a case of
44:The result was
494:The Freddy Awards
337:The Express-Times
252:, reprinted from
239:
225:
50:Materialscientist
709:
696:
606:
563:
558:
553:
548:
516:
511:
506:
501:
381:
376:
371:
366:
323:
318:
313:
308:
255:The Morning Call
226:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
717:
716:
712:
711:
710:
708:
707:
706:
705:
699:deletion review
692:
604:
588:, it is not a "
561:
556:
551:
546:
514:
509:
504:
499:
401:DionysosProteus
379:
374:
369:
364:
321:
316:
311:
306:
281:Chicago Tribune
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
715:
713:
704:
703:
687:
686:
668:
667:
645:
616:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
463:
462:
461:
460:
436:
435:
411:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
330:
329:
274:
240:
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
714:
702:
700:
695:
689:
688:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
649:
646:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
617:
615:
612:
611:
608:
607:
600:
596:
594:
591:
587:
583:
579:
576:
568:
565:
564:
559:
554:
549:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
528:
523:
522:
521:
518:
517:
512:
507:
502:
495:
491:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
464:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
416:
412:
410:
406:
402:
397:
394:
393:
386:
383:
382:
377:
372:
367:
360:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
333:
332:
331:
328:
325:
324:
319:
314:
309:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
275:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
256:
251:
247:
244:
241:
238:
234:
230:
223:
219:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
201:
199:
195:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
693:
690:
671:
652:
647:
618:
609:
602:
577:
544:
525:
497:
489:
466:
441:
414:
413:
395:
362:
358:
336:
304:
296:
288:
284:
276:
253:
249:
242:
217:
191:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
635:Mkativerata
590:future film
586:User:Woogee
527:guidelines.
155:free images
653:three days
631:WP:CRYSTAL
627:WP:CRYSTAL
672:Withdrawn
621:. Passes
657:Dravecky
605:Schmidt,
454:contribs
429:contribs
417:for now.
349:contribs
268:contribs
243:Comment:
116:View log
676:cmadler
415:Neutral
359:Express
289:already
229:cmadler
203:cmadler
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
623:WP:GNG
582:WP:GNG
531:Woogee
475:Woogee
467:Delete
291:meets
133:Google
93:delete
655:. -
396:Keep.
301:WP:NF
277:Keep.
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
680:talk
661:talk
648:Keep
639:talk
619:Keep
601:.
578:Keep
535:talk
479:talk
469:per
450:talk
446:Erik
442:Keep
425:talk
421:Erik
405:talk
345:talk
341:Erik
293:WP:N
264:talk
260:Erik
246:Here
233:talk
218:Note
207:talk
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:Keep
597:.
552:ter
547:Hun
529:.
505:ter
500:Hun
370:ter
365:Hun
312:ter
307:Hun
297:not
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
682:)
663:)
641:)
562:hn
557:Ka
537:)
515:hn
510:Ka
490:is
481:)
456:)
452:|
431:)
427:|
407:)
380:hn
375:Ka
351:)
347:|
322:hn
317:Ka
270:)
266:|
235:)
224:.
209:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
678:(
659:(
637:(
533:(
477:(
448:(
423:(
403:(
343:(
262:(
231:(
227:—
205:(
200:.
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.