Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive 81


 * 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 Draftify. You can find it at Draft:Archive 81. Missvain (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Archive 81

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... 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." Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I typically would prefer to draftify something like this, i.e. projects with releases still upcoming; however, there appears to be an existing draft at Draft:Archive 81 already. -2pou (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Only a single source with actual prose, so it doesn't meet NFF per nom. Note that Variety Insight is a reliable source of information, but does not provide any WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage as a database without any prose reporting.
 * Draftify – yes, there is an existing draft version of this article, but this is more in-depth than that draft and should replace the existing draft. At any rate, it definitely doesn't belong in mainspace per WP:NFF. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify, currently fails WP:NFF but may be notable in the future. RunningTiger123's rationale about this draft being more in-depth is correct. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 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.