Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing Season (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. Article has substantially improved since being nominated. The early comments for delete were based on lack of sources - these have now been found. While the actual voting is even, pointing to no consensus, the improvements in the article, and the direction of the discussion point to a keep  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Killing Season (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It is WP:TOOSOON for this film to have an article. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. Possibly incorporate a mention into the director's page as an "upcoming project" if it starts to get actual news coverage.Tyrenon (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Only add a mention to the director's page if a reliable source can be found for it. SL93 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:GNG The film is in production in Atlanta, GA and there are multiple news articles verifying the existence of this film. External link has been provided as well. Coutrystrong (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per policy on furure events and meeting WP:GNG and thus passing WP:NFF. Considering the coverage surrounding the film and its principles, this one is a close call... and could be seen as one of those allowable exceptions to WP:NFF. Or perhaps as a weak second choice, Redirect for a short while to Mark Steven Johnson where per policy this film can be spoken of and sourced in contect to that director's career. If redirected, we can undo the redirect when we have just a little more. Its a close call.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, not even scheduled for release for more than two years. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have options other than an outright deletion, in that policy allows that a topic of an anticipated event may be written of if properly cited and if not involving unsourced speculation, original research, or opinion... and even if not seen as meritng a separate article though persistant and enduring coverage, such topics might still be discussed in context somewhere. Do you feel that this policy is incorrect?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not object to a redirect to the director, except for the fact that I just removed a large amount of text from his article about films which he was scheduled to make which never came to fruition. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as they have sources, guideline allows that even failed projects might be spoken of in the director's artcle (where we would naturally require verifiability of even his failed attempts, if not actual completion)... which could then be included perhaps in a section about just such uncompleted projects.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect. Since filming has begun the sources look like enough to me to support an independent article.  But if others think not this is surely worth a brief mention in the directors article and a redirect makes sense.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 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.