Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Out (film)


 * 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 keep. The nominator's challenge was twofold: first, that the film fails WP:NFF, and the rough consensus is that this limb of the challenge has been refuted by evidence that the filming has started and is notable by virtue of the fame of certain cast members; and second, that the film fails WP:NF, and the rough consensus is that this limb of the challenge has been refuted by evidence of coverage in sources that the debate participants (by and large) found to be reliable. NAC by— S Marshall T/C 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)'''

Blood Out (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnotable future film. Fails WP:NFF and WP:NF, lacking significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Prod removed by SPA IP --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep That someone may have not been logged in when making a few edits or is making edits as a new and inexperienced user does not does not automatically make them WP:SPAs.. simply editors without a long contribution history.  So unless either is engaged in vandalism, why not give the benefit of the doubt, and extend courtesy and assistance?  Toward my "keep"... principle filming had begun and (perhaps) been completed (4 weeks is enough if production is tight), a trailer has been released, and the project uses the talents of many notables which which is why it is receiving coverage in reliable sources... thus meeting the cautions of WP:NF and WP:CRYSTAL.  Common sense would indicate that this project will get more coverage and not less as release approaches... and as cleanup, expansion, and sourcing have begun since nomination, it best serves the project and its readers to have this article remain and grow through the course of regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please prove it has finished production. Someone randomly changing the article to claim it so it supposedly meets WP:NFF does not make it so. Further, note that NFF also notes very clearly "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 guidelines." - who is starring in the film does not make it notable, nor do random press releases. The production has not had significant coverage in any reliable sources, just confirmation of its being planned and filming starting. It doesn't even have a confirmed release date beyond the vague "2011" (unsourced). As such, no it does not best serve the project to have an article for the posting of rumors and IMDB-style status updates. And an editor whose only edits have ever been to this single article is an WP:SPA whether you agree with the term or not. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect assertion, as guidelines are not mutually exclusionary. Involvement by notables that then give a film's production coverage in multiple reliable sources can indeed make a film's production notable per notability guidelines... which is why NFF is written as it is... as it is set to recognize that the GNG might be met even for an as-yet-unreleased film. And your bone-of-contention about whether or not the project is in post-production was easy to remove, pending sourcing... and there absolutely no point in going to battle over it with you.  And, as Wikipedia itself understands it is itself imperfect and a ongoing work in progress, demanding immediate perfection from newcomers sometimes kinda runs against guideline.  There is also not always a mandate to ignore an article's possibility for ongoing improvement and then give the bum's rush to a new article by a new editor, unless due diligence shows the article itself to be hoax or vandalism or totally lacking in sourcability.  If an IP removes a tag, that is also no reason to then send it to AFD two minutes later.  Such give good faith newcomers a bad impression toward the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete -WP:NFF, filming started last month. this has a long way to go before release and notability  Gtstricky Talk or C 23:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Guideline instructs that "articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."  An film with Val Kilmer, AnnaLynne McCord, Tamer Hassan, Luke Goss, 50 Cent, Ed Quinn, Tamer Hassan, Ryan Donowho, Ambyr Childers, Michael Arata, and Vinnie Jones could be considered to be of sufficiently wide interest to merit inclusion as release nears.  The project has been generating enough coverage, so that WP:GNG is being met... and it must not be forgotten that per WP:NFF, "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 guidelines"... those "notability guidelines" include WP:GNG, and as we have a film by a notable director and with a notable cast, coverage of the production to meet the GNG is easily found by those who look.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No sense deleting now just to recreate it later on. Most of the news I find through a search is about two of the actors beating one another up at a hotel.  Big name actors will surely have press about everything they do somewhere.   D r e a m Focus  23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually, there is sense in deleting it now just to recreate it later on. It's called WP:NFF.  There's no guarantee that this film will ever be finished or released.  There's no sense in creating the article before the film even exists.  Fails WP:NFF and WP:NF.    Snotty Wong   verbalize 22:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi SW... welcome to another article tagged for rescue. Per the userbox you display on your user page, I expected you much sooner and had missed your presence. Glad you did not disappoint, as I always find your comments worth reading.  And no... my statement is not intended to be sarcastic, as you do indeed help in my own better understanding of guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Snotty, are you here because you've studied the article, or simply because this article was listed at ARS and per your userbox, you've promised to vote to delete most of those (20/21 wasn't it?) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Andy Dingley and (to a much lesser extent) MichealQSchmidt are presumably (and inappropriately) attempting to discredit my !vote by pointing out that I regularly patrol articles that are tagged for rescue, and often vote to delete some of them (in good faith), as evidenced by one of my userboxes. The acceptability of my actions and of my userbox have been debated ad nauseum at the MfD for the userbox, and should not affect the way my comments are taken into consideration during closing.  Thanks.    Snotty Wong   gossip 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your userbox is your userbox, and as you ponted out, other editor's concerns about the userbox were disscussed at a the MFD, and per that MFD, your public announcement of your intentions is perfectly acceptable... just as I have the ARS userbox on my userpage... as well as ones for WikiProject Films, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Biography, Unreferenced articles WikiProject, and the Article Incubator. I can only hope that editors look at my userboxes and judge the quality of my edits accordingly.  Anyone with specialized userboxes is open to the same scrutiny.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Then you won't mind if I point out your membership in ARS at every rescue-tagged AfD, and subtly imply that your membership might be influencing you to vote Keep.  In fact, maybe I'll even make a new template to make it easier:
 * — MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) is a member of the Article Rescue Squadron.
 * Snotty Wong  gossip 04:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! That sure showed me.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a better one:
 * — MichaelQSchmidt's !vote to keep this article may have been influenced by their membership in the Article Rescue Squadron.
 * I'll go make the template.  Snotty Wong   babble 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And your templates are helpful to civil discussion how?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They illustrate how your initial comment about my userbox was equally unhelpful, irrelevant, and inappropriate.   Snotty Wong   express 04:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment @ SW: Article topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines.  A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed on the right...."  The subsections of WP:N do not overrule the main notability guideline page... they support it and allow further considerations toward notability, and guideline are not set to be mutually exclusionary. Someone may fail GNG but pass ANYBIO.  Someone might fail ANYBIO but pass GNG. So sorry... the topic does pass both WP:GNG and WP:NFF... through the notability of its production, as NFF is set in place to acknowledge that unreleased films might be found notable through production receiving coverage in reliable sources... as this one is.... and there is absolutely no hint of it being in "production hell".... quite the opposite.  Further, it has distribution in place and a tentative release set for the end of the year. Lionsgate has locked distribution in the US, UK, and Canada... and Cinema Management Group of Los Angeles has locked sales in (so far) Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Latin America, Poland, Turkey, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Scandinavia, and the Middle East... seems folks want to show this film.  Now had this film been something merely "rumored", or something still in still in "pre-production", I might tend to agree... but that's not the case. Considering who is involved, coverage has been continuing... and it is a bit of a strech to think that coverage might somehow decrease as release draws near... and heck, even total failures that were never released can and have occasionally been found notable enough for Wikipedia... but hey... this ain't been claimed or shown a failure here by anyone.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If the production shuts down today, nothing that has occured is notable. In the film world it happens every day. Will it, likely no, but all that is WP:CRYSTAL. We are assuming that in the future this will be a notable project either by it's release, or by some notable closure to the project. Anyway the article looks like a keep so I guess it is a waisted debate.  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is no film yet.  If the lead actor has a heart attack and dies, there may never be a movie.  No one is debating that the film will likely be notable once it exists.  But until it does exist, there is no reason for an article.  WP:NFF is crystal clear on this policy.  The only exception is if the production of the film itself is notable, of which I have seen no evidence.  Why not put it in incubation until the film is finished?    Snotty Wong   confer 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, with so many international sales already made, were Val Kilmer to die tonight (Lord forfend), the reality is that production would probably find some way to continue without him (as was done upon John Candys death during the shooting of Wagons East!) as fimmakers make films to make money, and investors and customers expect results... else production would be subject to such a bloodbath of lawsuits that we'd have continued coverage of production due to that happening.  But naturally such empty speculation in expecting or predicting failure at this late stage in principle filming is the true WP:CRYSTAL. The reason to keep is based upon it specifically meeting guideline, as explained and shown repeatedly on this page.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the ARS started training its members in the art of the Straw man argument? My point was that this film doesn't exist yet, and by speculating on its hypothetical cancellation I am attempting to prove a point which obviously went over your head.   I'll explain again: if the production of the film suddenly stopped and the film was never finished, then the film would not be notable and would not deserve an article unless the circumstances under which it was cancelled were themselves notable.  So, if the non-existent film is not notable now, then the article should be deleted until it becomes notable, because there is no guarantee that the film will ever be finished.  Note: I am not looking into my crystal ball and predicting that this film will be cancelled.  I am only referencing its cancellation as a hypothetical exercise in an attempt to illustrate an idea.    Snotty Wong   chat 04:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Has the ARS started training its members in the art of the Straw man argument?" What an incredible bad faith and incivil acccusation, set to denigrate as many editors as possible at once.  Your hypothetical speculations are just that.. hypothetical speculations... while my own comments towazrd production's current and growing notability, and why, are directly supported by guideline and sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, guidelines are guidelines. Do you have any sources which confirm that principal photography has started?  If not, then it fails WP:NFF, unless you have sources which establish the notability of the production itself, independent of the film.  Simple as that.  Please produce the sources.    Snotty Wong   chat 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Val Kilmer shoots film in Baton Rouge" WAFB for one.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Come on! Notable cast, crew, and reliably sourced. A notable project before, after, or if it's never released. And truly stupid, and a waste of a lot of people's time to nominate, much less delete. Dekkappai (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a reason to keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE.   Snotty Wong   express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the argument his not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability of production through its coverage. And THAT is per guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- Covered in enough reliable, independent sources to make it notable regardless of what WP:NFF says. Reyk  YO!  21:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:IAR. Ultimately it is a notable production and Wikipedia is improved by covering it. -- &oelig; &trade; 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is not a reason to keep an article. In fact, IAR argues equally for both deletion and keeping.  See WP:ITSNOTABLE.   Snotty Wong   express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability of production through its coverage, and improving the project through retention of an article. And THAT is per guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no guideline that says automatic retention of articles improves Wikipedia. Also, for the original comment about IAR, see WP:ONLYGUIDELINE.   Snotty Wong   chatter 14:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is asking for "automatic" retention. You might though want to actually read WP:IAR and then confirm for yourself by either reading the article or seraching for sources that the production is being covered in multiple reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable cast, past the dream stage and into production, distribution locked in, release date tentative, coverage in significant publications. - BalthCat (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a reason to keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE.   Snotty Wong   express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, the argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability of production through its coverage, and THAT is per guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what unique aspect of the production of this film is notable, and which sources establish its notability?   Snotty Wong   speak 04:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Production being written of in multiple reliable sources meets the instructions toward consideration of notability as set forth in WP:GNG.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Coverage cited in article is sufficient to meet WP:N.  If filming hadn't started yet, that would be one thing, but that's not this case.--Milowent (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NFF requires that the production of the filming itself be notable in order to have an article about a future film. Are there any sources which establish the notability of the production itself?   Snotty Wong   converse 20:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Production being written of in multiple reliable sources meets the instructions toward consideration of notability as set forth in WP:GNG. Both the article AND searches offer these sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Production received notability through its meeting WP:GNG. This has, and so this is.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen no evidence of your claim. Which sources establish the notability of the production of the film?    Snotty Wong   confer 14:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Production being written of in multiple reliable sources meets the instructions toward consideration of notability as set forth in WP:GNG. Both the article AND searches offer these sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * strong keep: looks well sourced... there is a difference between being a crystal ball vs talking about something in development... Arskwad (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a reason to keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE.   Snotty Wong   express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a slight case of Déjà vu now.--Milowent (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too.  Snotty Wong   yak 20:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Schmidt. WP:CRYSTAL is rightly a prohibition on making predictions about the future. This article covers a major commercial endeavour that is already under way. If it cancelled tomorrow there would need to be changes made, but the article would still be justified as, "What was Val Kilmer doing in 2010 and why wasn't it ever released?" (Terry Gilliams passim). We're past the point where WP:NFF is against it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's the whole point. If the production was cancelled tomorrow, this article would be immediately deleted, and maybe a one-line bullet point would get added to Val Kilmer's article.  Unless, of course, the reason that the production was cancelled was itself notable.   Snotty Wong   soliloquize 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We have lots of articles on cancelled films though, e.g., Something's Got to Give. See also "Category:Cancelled films" not to mention "Category:Upcoming films".--Milowent (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have articles on cancelled films, so your response above is irrelevant. I'll bet we have articles on about 0.00001% of all films that have ever been cancelled.  The only ones with articles are those whose cancellation itself was notable (i.e. if it was cancelled as a result of Marilyn Monroe's death, as in your example), or other circumstances surrounding the production were notable.    Snotty Wong   spout 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well give Snotty time, he hasn't got round to AfD'ing it yet! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IF the film were cancelled tomorrow... the production would likely remain notable for a whole different set of reasons.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It doesn't, in my opinion, fail WP:NFF.  Filming has started, and this has a source, and a notable cast.  No reason to delete.  Rob Sinden (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2010 (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.