Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradlewood


 * 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   delete. Black Kite (t)  00:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cradlewood

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Film is in pre-production and has not had extensive coverage in media. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFF. PRODded by another editor, seconded by me; PROD removed by creating editor without discussion or other addressing of basis for the PROD. TJRC (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: no more. Sk8erock (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - The following sources appear to be reliable: Dread Central, Coming Attractions, Atomic Popcorn Sure, they're not great, but they seem to be enough. --Madison-chan (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan


 * Comment: Wouldn't it make sense to add those sources in the article? What's up with creating articles and not using any sources to back up what you write.  Oh and nice to see that Sk7erock Sk8erock actually converses. — Mike   Allen   23:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the article. I'm just a friendly editor providing some sources for the article's creator. Also, is that "Oh and nice to see that Sk7erock actually converses." an insult? If so I'm offended. I know people are rude on the internet, but blindly hating on someone for no real reason is fucking stupid. --Madison-chan (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He's referring to Sk8erock, the person who voted ahead of you. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay then, never mind. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete until principal photography begins, when an article can be recreated. Our notability guideline for films has a section on future films that says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."  There is no reason to deviate from our established practice in this case.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NFF states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles".  Did this film ever start shooting last year?  The sources seem out of date and do not back this up.  So without evidence that the cameras rolled, clear case for deletion.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incubate for a few weeks. I almost want to say keep, As it appears to be one of those allowable exceptions to NFF... as the film received extensive coverage during pre-production and production and actually seems to have completed post-production and is simply awaiting a release date. Considering the coverage, I do not see outright deletion as suitable, and in the incubator it will receive the benefit of collaborative editing until ready for a return.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see a reference to show that it ever went in to production. As filming was supposed to start 18 months ago, and as the official website is down, was production abandoned?  This is why WP:NFF exists.  This film could be in a state of limbo, so should not have been created until it is evidenced that production started.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why in point of fact that I did not opine a keep. We are not in disagreement that it does not belong in mainspace, nor that the completion of filming has not been confirmed in any RS. Incubation exists for the similar reasons as NFF... to remove something from mainspace that is premature, the difference being that it allows collaborative efforts nowiki'd and away-from-mainspace by those who may be inclined to do so. And if it is not improved, it will be deleted from the incubator in due course and without any fanfare whatsoever. I could find only non-RS rumors related to its completion, which was why I suggested it be removed from mainspace and placed temporarily in limbo until RS came forward. I would be just as fine with it being userfied back to its author, and for the same reasons.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete now - It appears to me that this film is in development hell. We should should put this article in incubation for an editor to work on it until the production restarts. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy. I held off on voting until I had more information, but since this appears to be in development hell this should be deleted until something is shown to where the film is being made. I have no problems with Sk8erock userfying it until that point arrives, though. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Comment. Not sure what Sk8erock intended with this edit, but it doesn't follow guidelines for civility or preserving the flow of the discussion.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment — After all, the discussion is about the article or about me? There's a comment that does not cite sk8erock ¬¬ Sk8erock (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2011 (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.