Talk:Cruise (film)/Archive 1

Promo
Is anyone else disturbed by the anticipatory-promotional nature of this article and its sources? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In my humble opinion this is a 100% advertisement.--Catlemur (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's still being filmed, not even in post-production according to IMDB. It's unfortunately one of hundreds like this. It's unencylopedic dross, sourced entirely to press release-based "articles" in trade publications (the dead give-away is that they all have the same date) and followup tidbits in tabloids about the female lead "showcasing her taut tummy in a tiny crop top." Sigh! However, I very much doubt that any of the editors involved have anything to do with this film. I think it's more a case of the wide-spread recentism that plagues Wikipedia. Thus, that COI tag on the article inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Addendum. Here's a copy of the press release from AG Capital. which unsurprisingly is repeated in whole or in part by all the sources used. I've removed some of the more blatant examples of this from the article, i.e.
 * During pre-production, Deadline.com's Erik Pedersen described the film as "a period youth-culture drama". Well, he would do, wouldn't he? That's exactly how the press release he got described it.


 * This is the first project under an AG Studios online private investment network initiative entitled Slated that was created to serve what Dave McNary of Variety describes as "established independent filmmakers and investors" and that will be responsible for syndicate financing of AG movies. Well, he would do, wouldn't he? That's exactly how the press release he got described it.


 * Voceditenore (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Catlemur, which of the contributors to the article do you believe has a COI? Presumably it must be one or more of those listed in the article's history. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * BlueMoonset, this is a fine example.--Catlemur (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So because TonyTheTiger used information from the Deadline and Entertainment Weekly articles, some of it sensationalist (I thought the allusion to American Graffiti was a major stretch, myself), you think that he, as the COI template states, has "a close connection with its subject", which in turn means he (or his associates) stands to benefit materially from it? That he is directly associated with the movie? That's what the COI template means on Wikipedia. You must surely have evidence beyond that edit for that kind of claim, Catlemur. If you don't, then I strongly recommend you remove the template; if you don't do so and don't produce the evidence here, I'll remove it myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * BlueMoonset As mentioned in the COI notice board: TonyTheTiger has also made considerable contributions to various articles related to Emily Ratajkowski bringing the article about her to GA, being a top editor for Blurred Lines, and creating the We Are Your Friends (film) article (another film of questionable importance). Another diff.--Catlemur (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw, Catlemur; again, none of that is convincing, as Voceditenore points out at the noticeboard, especially given TonyTheTiger's voluminous edits in the film/actor space. I'm very glad you removed the COI template from the article, as your case is circumstantial at best, and also strikes me as a failure of AGF. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * BlueMoonset, It seems that I was unable to produce enough evidence of COI and therefore I would like to ask the admins to close the discussion.I also apologize to TonyTheTiger, however I will pursue the deletion of Cruise (film) for reasons mentioned above.I request a second opinion on whether a PROD notice should remain on the page.--Catlemur (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Catlemur. Once a PROD has been removed, it cannot be re-added. If you think there are grounds for deleting this article you need to start an AFD discussion. The instructions are on the page I just linked. But note, promotionalism is normally not grounds for deletion unless it is very blatant and irreparable. I think, however, that a case can be made on grounds of it not satisfying the notability criteria. See Notability (films) and especially the section on "future" films — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 12:04, 10 February 2016‎ (UTC)
 * VoceditenoreI have initiated the AfD process for the article.--Catlemur (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To follow up on what Voceditenore wrote, a PROD is proposing deletion of an article—if someone objects for any reason, they simply remove the PROD and that's that, but if no one objects over the course of a week or so it is deleted. The idea behind PROD is that in many cases there's no need to go through an AfD because everyone will agree that the article should not be retained on Wikipedia. As soon as there is an objection, then the recourse is AfD, where the community decides whether the article should stay or be deleted, and there needs to be a consensus on deletion based on Wikipedia standards for it to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)