Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice, Darling


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Alice, Darling

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:TOOSOON article about a film still in the production pipeline, not yet the subject of sufficient reliable source production coverage to separate its notability from the primary criteria at WP:NFILM. We do not routinely create or keep articles about every single film that goes into production just because one or two casting announcements can be found for technical verification -- we permit articles in advance of release for a limited selection of very high profile projects (e.g. Star Wars, Marvel) that get a lot of coverage during the production process, but the overwhelming majority of films are neither notable nor entitled to Wikipedia articles until they're actually released and getting reviewed by film critics. But of the three footnotes here, two are just two different industry magazines reporting the same casting announcement on the same day, and the third is a government "projects in production" directory listing that isn't support for notability at all — which is not enough sourcing to give this film the "high profile enough to not have to wait until it's released" pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * keep both sources Hollywood Reporter and Deadline Hollywood are greenlisted in WP:RSP so this does actually pass WP:GNG as these are in-depth coverage of the film. Applicable is WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, but this seems to be the case here. --hroest 14:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * NFF is not a blanket exemption from NFO for every unreleased film that's still in the production pipeline, just because it can be shown that one casting announcement got reported in the trades. NFF is for very high profile projects (e.g. Star Wars, Marvel) that get a lot of coverage (i.e. considerably more than just one or two hits) during the production process, while the normal notability criteria that most films have to pass is still NFO. Bearcat (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify NFF does not indicate when it is appropriate to have an article, it just indicates when it is not appropriate. Despite the the coverage being from a independent RS, the coverage here is not significant. It is run-of-the-mill production announcements. That does not make the production notable. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I found articles in Stylist, Vulture , and Marie Claire . It would seem the pandemic-driven Hollywood news drought means these sorts of publications are more enthusiastic about articles like this than they might normally be. Nonetheless, these are not duplicates or re-printed promotional press releases, but articles written by staff-writers from high-profile publications. Combined with the above, that's enough significant coverage for me.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say, too, that a number of sources seem to have appeared in the week since this was nominated and there's not way the nominator (Bearcat) could have seen them.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The new improvements and sources added to page passes the article for WP:GNG. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the work put in by, and the sources they mention above, that have established notability. NemesisAT (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Deaftify per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The sources in the article and produced above are not WP:SIGCOV and they essentially repeat each other. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 04:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.