Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercy (upcoming 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. Vmars22 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Mercy (upcoming film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG because it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. This can be found by first looking at the sources that this article references. These sources and are not reliable because they are sources that are not independent of the subject. Next, these sources and were published by the same author meaning their only one source for WP:N. Lastly, there is this source meaning there are two sources for this article. There are not very more reliable sources to add to this article so it should be deleted. KAP03Talk 18:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If this article does not get deleted it should at least be renamed to Mercy (2017 film) because the current title is MOS:RELTIME. KAP03Talk 19:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The film has notable actors in it, if it is nominated for deletion due to the social media sourcing, I will replace with better citations. Vmars22 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will expand and find additional references. Vmars22 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is obviously notable. However, in the title, the words "upcoming" should be removed. Also, the Instagram posts should be removed. Other than that, this is a keep as the reliable sources are there. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by coverage in reliable sources, as well, as filming have taken place, rather than expecting to take place. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think two different articles on the film filed by Variety film reporter Dave McNary a month apart would be considered as one article. These are not reprints or mirrors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In WP:GNG it states that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." This clearly shows that two articles on the film by "Variety" film reporter Dave McNary should be considered one article as they were published by the same author. KAP03Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions 17:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. Common sense applies, or one should use common sense in applying thee rules. But in this case, the second Variety piece is a short follow up anyway. However, if McNary writes a second major article on the release of the film in Variety, there's no way I'm gonna accept that that's all one source. But that's a hypothetical. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this coverage is adequate to meet WP:GNG. Daß &thinsp; Wölf 18:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Yes, I think the sources on the article now and those I see via Gnews shows enough coverage to meet WP:NFF. (If deleted, which I doubt will happen, we should see about moving to user or draft space until such time as the film launches). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2017 (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.