Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Days in the Desert


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Last Days in the Desert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NFILM: Independent reliable sources do not confirm that principle photography has begun. Too soon. Sum mer PhD (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong feeling about this one, but I do believe you will have more to write about if you wait until the film is released. Might be better to stick this in your sandbox and try again laterBali88 (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Broadway World providing a "first look" here at the film in production. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NF. Apparently independent reliable sources confirm that principle filming has begun (thanks Erik), and we have ample sources available to meet our basic notability standard. It serves the project to have this remain and grow over time and through regular editing.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 14:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not have independent reliable sources confirming principle photography. We have broadwayworld.com updating text from a press release. Compare:
 * "The film is produced by Julie Lynn and Bonnie Curtis of Mockingbird Pictures along with Wicks Walker of Division Films, who financed the picture in collaboration with recently shingled Ironwood Entertainment, with Aspiration Media and New Balloon in association. Last Days in the Desert is set to commence principal photography in early February in the Southern California desert." with
 * "The film is produced by Julie Lynn and Bonnie Curtis of Mockingbird Pictures along with Wicks Walker of Division Films, who financed the picture in collaboration with recently shingled Ironwood Entertainment, with Aspiration Media and New Balloon in association. The film has commenced principal photography in the Southern California desert."
 * Is broadwayworld.com a reliable source? I don't know. However, it isn't their reporting. Their source for the update to the press release (linked at the bottom) is celebrity-gossip.net who in turn credits gossipcenter.com.
 * Yes, we have reliable sources printing material from a press release. Is one press release (no matter how many times it is reprinted), with an update from celebrity-gossip.net the basis for a balanced article on anything? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The press release is not being reprinted. To be reprinted is to mean that the press release is repeated exactly as it is. However, the references in the article are journalists writing about the film in their own words, which indicates an independent interest in covering the topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If two students turned in the two paragraphs above and claimed they were "in their own words", should I believe that they just happened to come up with exactly the same words? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - This still looks too soon. All the sources in article and this discussion quote the exact same words strongly suggesting the source is a single press release, presumably by Mockingbird Films. What we need for notability is reliable, independent sources - I don't see that here.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline.com are all reliable, independent sources. They use information from the press release in their coverage. There's nothing wrong with that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please see film notability guidelines - It is clear that the authorship of these comments is someone associated with the film which the reliable sources have simply regurgitated. Fails general notability test.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the "press release" part? These articles are not mere reprints of the press release. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (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.