Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money (2016 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 Userfy to User:Tokyogirl79/Money (2016 film).. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Money (2016 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a yet to be release film, under production. Notability under WP:GNG and WP:FILM may be weak for things that do not exist yet. Has two decent sources that refer to it being under production. Suggest we delete now and wait to see if film gets any coverage once it is actually made. New Media Theorist (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It's in production, and not a major film. Not notable yet. Can't find the movie (even searching for "Martin Rosete") in The Hollywood Reporter. WP:CRYSTAL applies. John Nagle (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (Keep) Do not delete The film is in post-production and was announced exclusively on Variety.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ban003 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm cleaning the article of any of the promotional fluff. If I can find coverage for this then this might pass NFF if the production has been extensively covered. If not, then I'd suggest userfication. Sorry Ban003, but this is very promotional and given that your contributions have been brought up at the COI and ANI boards, I'm not sure that I can trust you to take care of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Draftify/Userfy to User:Tokyogirl79/Money (2016 film). My search for sources was actually quite short because the two sources on the article are really the only places where this film has received coverage. It's possible that this could receive coverage in the future and towards that end, I volunteer to take this into my userspace and wait for sourcing. Right now it's just too soon for an entry since the production hasn't really received that much coverage, not enough to warrant an entry per WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy if Tokyogirl79 wants to take this one on. Otherwise, I'd say Delete. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Alts:
 * filmmaker:
 * producer:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * production:
 * production:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Entering post-production means that filming has completed and production has thus moved into editing and audio correction, etc. When that happens and we have supporting coverage in reliable sources, we CAN have an article on a yet-to-release film. Being "major" is not the determinant... coverage IS. Sorry, but when a new stub can certainly be improved, needing work is not a reason to delete.The Dissolve Short Film The Wrap Just Film Variety  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy: do not delete, unless it isn't real, but also not keep, this article is earlier. 333-blue 10:21, 28 September 2015 (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.