Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elevator (2011 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   incubate. Incubating here. m.o.p 06:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Elevator (2011 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable movie. Striker force Talk Review me! 11:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep it is an upcoming film and as yet has not been released. It has notible actors hense they are all on wiki bar 1 it has a big budget and has been written by AWGIE award winner marc rosenberg.Craigster92 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore It is a completed project and has a Trailer released, It is not likly to change as production has closed It awaits rlease date.Craigster92 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Your argument falls under WP:NOTINHERITED, I'm afraid.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 11:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am stating the case, the argument has been made that the film is not notable, the film has not yet been given a full release. It contains notable actors & writers who are on wikipedia, this is part of the criterian for notibility. The argument against unreleased film is they are subject to change, and hence are not allowed there own page. This is a completed project which has just been test screened.Craigster92 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You are mistaken. Beacause it contains notable actors & writers falls under WP:NOTINHERITED.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 18:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 *Delete It can be created as it becomes more notable. Not right now. [User:Grim Littlez|KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ]] (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Though the article and IMDB state that this film is to be released this year, searches on other reliable sources such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, or ComingSoon.net have come up empty. Therefore I do not believe that this film passes WP:GNG at this time.  Also as noted above, notability is not inherited.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 02:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Allow the article to be userfied for the time being, to see if this film actually gets released. IMDb indicates no distributor for this film and only a vague release date of "2011" (no month or day). Userfying the article would allow it to be edited while being kept out of the mainspace until the film is actually certain to be released to the public. (If nobody wants the article to be userfied to their userspace, it should be deleted.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support proposal to userfy (Craigster92 might like to have a crack at it!), currently violates the Law of the Hammer. Yunshui (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy makes sense to do it this way. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the term userfiy but i'm happy to keep it till the film is given a full release, I think I read september but I cant remember the source Craigster92 (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Userfy" means that an editor can take the article under their wing, out of mainspace, to continue work until ready for a return. If "userfied" to you, it will be at User:Craigster92/Elevator (2011 film).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP or perhaps either Incubate or Userfy for a very brief time. Film has/is receiving coverage: The "press" page on the official website links to 16 different articles about the film, and diligent searches find more. IE:Daily News & Analysis Ecrans Scifiworld et al. Though User:ArcAngel may have missed them in his own search, the significant coverage for a film that has begun principle photography as required by the GNG has been met.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:13, 15 July 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.