Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadline (2012 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. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Reliable sources have been added establishing the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Deadline (2012 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This film is not yet notable, as witnessed by a lack of coverage, per WP:NFILMS; a gnews search finds two mentions in reliable sources, a total of eight sentences. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the IMDB page for the film not qualify it for notability? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1430811/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathonarnold (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, an IMDB listing does not qualify a film as notable; it is a discouraged source, and its function as a database means that at best it shows that something exists, not that it's notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

*Delete for right now - Non-notable indie flick, and like Nat Gertler said, just having an IMDB page doesn't establish notability. If it gets significant coverage in 2012, then an article will be made. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have located a few notable links for the film. More will, obviously, come in time:

Here are two press outlets discussing the unique premieres happening for this film: http://www.pulaskicitizen.com/news/Stories/110203FilmCrewMovesOnLocalsAwaitPremier.html http://www.apme.com/news/72796/

And a link from the Grievances book publisher on the filming of the movie: http://www.newsouthbooks.com/pages/2011/01/25/deadline-based-on-mark-ethridges-grievances-begins-filming/

I will add pertinent references to data on the page using these links. Will this qualify as notable?

--Jonathonarnold (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The page from the publisher does not establish notability, as they are not an uninvolved party. The APME reference is a promotion for a showing that the APME is hosting, so again, not an uninvolved party. The Pulaski Citizen is a local paper for a town of under 8000 people; while it adds some amount to the notability, a small paper talking on a local topic is limited in its significance. --Nat Gertler (talk)


 * Comment to User:Jonathonarnold: Please read WP:Planned films. Per WP:NFF, and unless filming is imminent and there is persistant and in-depth coverage about the its production, films that have not commenced principle filming are usually not good candidates for separate articles. But even when principle filming is not imminent, policy does allow them to be spoken about in other articles (IE: the directors, production comnpany, or main stars) as long as the information is properly sourced and does not involve unsourced speculation or original research. That said, I will take a look and see if I can rewrite the thing to make it at least suitable for the incubator... a place where such articles can be collaboratively worked on away from mainspace. I'll report back. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This film has apparently not only commenced but has completed photography and has had individual screenings. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. My discovery as well. Looks like it just may meet WP:NF after all. Just a metter of adding sources... and it seems they ae available. The Tennessean: Nashville Gets Another Taste of Hollywood The Tennessean: Nashville Banker Bitten by the Film Bug  The Tennessean: Rippavilla Turns on Charm for Role in Upcoming Movie  Still working.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources available showing film HAS screened, will continue screening, and is recieving coverage. When I add the archived articles I offered above to those offered by User:Jonathonarnold, we have a meeting of WP:NF. Growing commentary and review in reliable sources is what we have and it's enough, as WP:NF does not demand world-wide coverage for low-budget independent films. Is it as notable as the big studio big budget Star Wars, Harry Potter, or Twilight franchises? Nope. But is it notable enough for Wikipedia? Yup. This indicates it's time to fix up the article... but not delete it. My thanks to the nominator.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Sufficient RS have been identified. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:MOVIE per sources provided by Schmidt.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per sources found by Schmidt. Thanks man! --Madison-chan (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all!--Jonathonarnold (talk) 04:04, 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.