Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Lies


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead Lies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Borderline advertising for an as yet unmade film. It's a WP:CRYSTAL case. NtheP (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly doesn't meet the standard for new films.  Ubelowme U  Me  21:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per TOO SOON. The film's own website tells us the project is planned to be ready for an October 2014 release. But it also shares "The movie is currently in early stages of pre-production and will enter full pre-production when at least 10% of the budget has been raised through our Film Fund." We have something that has not even begun principle filming.  Under WP:NFF its lack of filming and total lack of coverage in reliable sources makes this article premature. Perhaps in a year of two an article would be worth considering. But for now? Nope.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. The author is welcome to a WP:REFUND. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete If this were a notable topic at the current time, it would have a title something like "Pre-film financing for Dead Lies", and be cited with a list of reliable secondary sources.  Instead, it is an uninteresting article about a possible future–at Wikipedia, we do WP:NOT need to postulate about the future, we can can wait for it.  Suggest salting until after the film is released to prevent any further possibility of WP:NOT WP:PROMOTION and WP:N "promotional activity".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I firmly agree that the article is premature, I do not think we can "postulate" that salting is justified or even neccesary at this time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that there is no possibility that Wikipedia is currently part of a "viral marketing" promotional activity? Unscintillating (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ??? If so, then those editors will be brought to task for such actions, but I see no evidence that this particular article was contributed in bad faith. What I am "arguing" that we not ourselves personally involve in speculation, and that we deal with such instances IF or WHEN they happen using the processes in place for such.  I willingly and quite often opine deletes for premature articles... just as I have done here... without making a purely speculative demand that a title must  be pre-emptively salted because it might become susceptible to promotional activity at some time in the future.  Salt or not if it happens... but not before.
 * And while this film article is premature, policy specifically instructs that we CAN consider including forward-looking information when it states "all 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." So policy does NOT say we "cannot" discuss future events.  What WP:NOT in fact explains is just how and when we might do so, just so as long as the information is encyclopedic, neutral, and well and properly sourced.  But to repeat in case anyone thinks after my exposition that I wish this topic kept... THIS film topic is far too premature for a separate article and does not have anything near the requisite persistant and ongoing coverage to even be considered as a possible exception to WP:NFF.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All of those straw men don't change the fact that there is a viral marketing campaign to fund this film, and Wikipedia currently is, ipso facto, participating in WP:N "promotional activity". Therefore, salting IMO would be a reasonable precaution.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay... back to policy. The straw man is in presupposing a future policy violation when one has not yet taken place.  What happens elsewhere on the internet is what happens elsewhere on the internet.  We can certainly salt or protect any article that becomes the repeated target of inappropriate editing... but we do not salt a valid topic based upon a speculation that it might.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * First of all, do you think you can tone down the rhetoric? For example, claiming that I am "demanding" salting when I used the word "suggest"–and it was done in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia–does not IMO help to build consensus.  Also, the words "bad faith" seemed inappropriate to me.  I looked at WP:SALT, and my suggestion fits within policy.  I am guessing that you believe that salting is limited to articles that have been re-created.  Do you agree that the Wikipedia currently fits in as part of the marketing plan for the funding of this film?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Hate to say it, but there is little that isn't speculation and seems to share a close connection with the writer based on the already present trivia section. Wikipedia isn't about trivia, let alone unreleased movies with a release date 2 years away. Serves more to get interest to fund the movie, at this point, like an ad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2012 (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.