Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruise (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 delete. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Cruise (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The film in question has not been released yet, it is written in a promotional manner and lacks serious notability. Catlemur (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete As an example of WP:CRYSTAL. It's being filmed, however that doesn't say much. Agreed it reads promotionally as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  20:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not only per WP:CRYSTAL but also per Notability (films) which it comprehensively fails. It's still being filmed—not even in post-production according to IMDB. It also fails WP:GNG. Although masquerading as multiple "articles", six of the eight references are virtually identical announcements in industry trade papers and websites that the film was being planned. They all appeared on September 14/15, 2015 and are all based on this press release of September 14, 2015 from AG Capital (the film's financers), which, unsurprisingly, is repeated in whole or in part in all the "articles". Of the remaining two, one is yet another trade website "announcing" another bit of the casting in October 2015. The other one, also from October 2015, is in a British tabloid with 12 large publicity photos of the female lead "showcasing her taut tummy in a tiny crop top." and minimal text, mostly about her other activities with four sentences about the film (taken from the original press release). I've searched for anything better, but there just isn't. Cruise (film) is simply a product announcement for product that hasn't even been made yet. It does not belong in an encyclopedia, even one like Wikipedia. How on earth this article made it to the main page as a Did you know? three days ago is beyond me. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Per Notability (films), If all that existed was the press release this would not be a notable subject. However, in this case numerous independent WP:RS have deemed the subject of the press release to be notable enough to publish related content. At WP, as a tertiary resource, our responsibility is to summarize such RS regardless of their similarity. Examining Notability (films) (especially the subsection WP:NFSOURCES), if the press release is the source for our article it should not be kept. However, looking at the second part of that section, the proper consideration is whether sources with reliable publication processes and authoritarian authors have deemed the subject matter to be notable. In this case as has noted, numerous independent sources that have reliable publication processes and authoritarian authors have published content on the film, albeit similar content echoing a press release. Nothing about NFSOURCES says anything about a requirement that the RS have to have a wide variety of opinions. If several independent RS all have the exact same opinions it is no more or less satisfactory than if there is disparity. Clearly, the editors of each publication has independently determined the subject to be notable enough for its audience's attention. The other element of Notability (films) that is relevant is consideration of its progress per WP:NFF. Clearly principal photography has commenced, making WP:CRYSTAL irrelevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S., although the IMDB.com page indicates that it is filming, I believe that filming has completed. I believe that this was filmed over a five week period in the fall and that the stars are no longer on set. Ratajkowski has not spent time in NY since before the holidays (based on following her social media).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Re the "multiple sources", I am following footnote 3 of WP:GNG:
 * Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
 * This is clearly the case with six of the eight references. The other two are trivial in terms of their coverage, and what they do say about the film is again from the press release. To me this is analogous to a press release from Nissan stating that they're planning to make a new door-locking system. The press release with minor modifications and the addition of a byline is duly published in several trade publications (and that's precisely what Variety, Wrap, EW, etc. are, albeit for a more glamorous trade). Perhaps some would consider that sufficient for writing a stand-alone article about a door-locking system which has yet to roll off the production line or be fitted in any cars. I don't, although I recognize opinions do differ on this. As for the filming, there are zero reliable sources to it having been completed or gone any further than the street scene in New York City publicized in the Daily Mail in October. There are numerous other reasons why Ratajkowski hasn't been in NY since the holidays. At best because the indoor scenes may be filmed or about to be filmed in the studio in Los Angeles. At worst because there has been a delay/hiatus in the filming. In any case, it's pure speculation. Voceditenore (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I had never seen that footnote before. It does give me pause.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The guide suggests that we evaluate whether principal photography has commenced. It make no mention of considering when it has concluded or when the film has gone to post-production.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Daily Mail is hardly a reliable source, it is mostly a source of unconfirmed rumors and news about people who are Famous for being famous. There is also absolutely no way for someone to know if Ratajkowski has or has not been in New York, unless someone works for her or stalks her.I believe that the article still falls under WP:CRYSTAL as it is/reads like a product announcement.--Catlemur (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The only additional content that I could think of adding to the article is a statement such as "During production, the oncamera romance between Ratajkowski and Boldman garnered the pair publicity" with citations such as this, this and this. I am not sure whether that is appropriate content however.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's totally inappropriate. "Garner" is pure PR-speak and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia in the first place. More importantly, the film didn't "garner" publicity. It gets mentions in some of the numerous PR plants and provided by Ms. Ratajkowski's obviously hyperactive publicist and dutifully published by the Daily Mail and the Daily Express tabloids. Observe and . The "article" titles alone say it all. The Newsgrio link is simply a reprint from the Daily Mail article "What would Homer think? Emily Ratajkowski dresses up as a very sexy Marge Simpson at Heidi Klum's Halloween bash" which you linked to. The Marge Simpson article tacks on at the end that Boardman and Ratajkowski "were spotted kissing passionately beside a car in a park" while filming Cruise and supplies one of the numerous publicity shots taken of the event in October and already published by the Mail the previous week. The same picture is tacked on to the end of the Daily Express article you linked to: "Emily Ratajkowski spills out of her leopard print bikini in sizzling holiday snap". Neither of these attest to the notability of the film, and don't even verify that the filming has significantly progressed beyond those early publicity photo shoots in October. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:44, 17 February 2016 (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.