Talk:Black Christmas (2019 film)

Mainspace
Since the film has started filming now isn't it time to move it to mainspace?★Trekker (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't yet meet WP:NFO or WP:GNG as all the coverage so far is routine. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It does meet GNG easily. ROUTINE is not accurate because most horror films are low profile and do not get this kinda coverage so early before release. Keeping it in draftspace detrimental since we know that it's a high profile remake from the biggest horror film studio out there and it's already done filming, there is pretty much no realistic chance this film won't be released. We souldn't wait months to put it in mainspace, because again all that does it hurt its chances of having more material added and be improved.★Trekker (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , , : I added 10+ reliable citations that describe cast, crew, and filming information of this film. This film now has plenty of coverage and should also meet your proposed Wiki Project rules. If there isn't enough citations, I will be glad to add more to fulfill your requirements. Is this draft ready to become a full article? Please accept the submission. Cardei012597 (talk) 1:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

,, , This draft has enough reliable citations to pass the above Wiki Projects. If you agree, can you accept the submission and move this page to the mainspace? This page has waited long enough. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I personally believe the coverage to still be routine and the draft to not pass NFO or GNG; this is not an issue with the draft (which looks about as good as it can be with the current information we have), but with the notability of the topic as of the current moment. However, the purpose of AfC is to filter out things that wouldn't be kept at Articles for deletion and I think it stands a decent chance of being kept (though I would !vote to delete or... well, to move to draftspace). I'd be interested to here from . — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

These Wiki Project rules seem to indicate that EVERY film needs the kind of marketing that a big budget film would normally have. You can't categorize every film in these rules due to the simple fact that some films are notable BUT are not given the buffet of news sources you require. There are TONS of independent film articles that are on the mainspace, some have LESS citations than this page. It just seems like this particular page is having more issues passing your Wiki Project rules than films with far less references. Is Black Christmas really some underground film no one's heard of? I prefer to have some other administrator or page mover discuss this matter, if this issue keeps persisting. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , It has nothing to do with films being a big budget or anything of that sort. If films are notable enough, in simple words films have something(notable Screenings, critique, films being a research subject, reviews after some years, re-release, films have direct impact on society, other films, the industry itself. etc ) which has happened for a sustained period then those films are notable. Do you have anything of that sort with you? Additionally, this being a future film, I would prefer that we keep this draft in draft space and let you improve it. Sorry for now. And comparing this draft with other pages on enwiki is really sad, if you feel like you have seen other bad pages, you are free to tag/draftify/mark them for deletion according to valid policies and rules of enwiki. Right now lets talk about this particular draft of yours and how to make suitable for acceptance. thanks   QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 04:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't own "this particular draft (of yours)". No one owns or is in charge of any Wikipedia article. See WP:OWN for more information on this subject. Second: Since you didn't understand what I meant by saying "big budget" films, very few films are accepted onto the mainstream that have small budgets, This happens because small budget films do NOT have an acceptable amount of citations or coverage. Small budget films, like Black Christmas, tend to fail these rules because there is not much new sources discussing them. This is what I meant by saying that "Big Budget films are accepted easier than small budget films": Because no one reports or announces anything on major news sources on these small budget films. It is not practical to group every film into a couple rules because certain films can never reach these high standards, even if they are remakes of major news worthy films. Its just interesting that this is practically one of the few films, that started filming for a major studio, that can't seem to gather enough information to qualify for the mainspace. You'd think Universal Pictures and Blumhouse would've given many major interviews discussing this particular remake of a 1970s cult horror classic. Oh well. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Four points to add to what QueerEcofeminist said: (1) You've been linked to WP:NFO and this (particularly the criterion of two national reviews about the film) is likely why the articles you mention are notable; otherwise, perhaps they aren't - with 5 million articles, sometimes mistakes are made. (2) No administrator or page mover has any more authority than any other editor when it comes to content disputes. We're all just volunteers. (3) Notability is demonstrated by secondary sources, and interviews are primary sources. (4) Why the hurry? The film won't be released for months. We don't have any substantial plot information. What is the problem with waiting until reviews for the film come out and then having the draft moved to article space? — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand why this is still in draftspace. It far exceeds the necessities of WP:NFF. Filming has started and concluded, it has a set release date, cast and is very well sourced. How does that not pass GNG? Rusted AutoParts 05:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. That was a complete oversight by me: I hadn't seen WP:NFF and nobody pointed it out to me. I was coming from a TV background, where television series at this stage of production would not be notable, as the coverage would be considered routine, and only saw WP:NFO as the film notability criteria. I've requested speedy deletion of the redirect Black Christmas (2019 film) to make way for this draft to be accepted. Apologies for the mistake on my part. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviations
Why is the formal name of the DKO not stated beforehand, but the shortened form of the name is? Shouldn't it be written as "organization name"(abbreviation name)? SalmanTheWhovian (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The plot
The fact that the plot is "copyrighted" is complete stupid nonsense. Is this movie too protective of its crappy plot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoiglesias271 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)