Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Valuable Players (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 per discussion and nominator request. Materialscientist (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Most Valuable Players (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not appear to meet either the general notability guideline (lacks significant coverage in multiple sources) or the subject specific guidelines for films. cmadler (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —cmadler (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is an article from California Chronicle, reprinted from The Morning Call. That now makes two separate sources that have significant coverage of this film.  Let's look for more coverage. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm the primary author. This article is still fairly new, was started only a few weeks ago, and so I feel this AFD is premature. As far as other sources, I'll try to dig some up. The Chicago Tribune just ran the same story as the California Chronicle above, which even if it's a reprint, shows its receiving wide coverage throughout the country, not just locally. Even putting that aside, the article already meets WP:N because it is cited with reliable secondary sources, not the kind of material that WP:NF frowns upon (press releases, trailers, advertising, trivial coverage). —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  19:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Cmadler is looking for sources besides The Express-Times, which is the only one used in the article currently. The reprints lend credence, so it's not quite a shoo-in.  It looks like that it is screening this Friday, so there will likely be coverage in the ensuing weekend. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I added the non-Express source I previously cited, and will dig up more in the meantime. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The discussion appears premature, given that the film is upcoming. A couple of newspaper sources for a project at that stage is enough for the benefit of the doubt, given that the article material is there and sourced. A review of notability in, say, a year's time when the film has been released would be in order. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. I'd like to see more varied sources, and with the screening this Friday, they should be forthcoming. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per revisions so article now has coverage from multiple sources. I'm sure even more coverage will be forthcoming this weekend. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Notability_(films). In addition, it's produced and created by non-notable film makers about a non-notable subject and distributed by a non-notable company.  An article about the Freddy Awards would surely be deleted, why should a film about them stick around?  Woogee (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy you are citing regarding future films refers to films that "that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography". This one doesn't fit the criteria. And actually, there is a Wikipedia article about The Freddy Awards. And before you rush over to AFD that one, please keep in mind that the subject isn't quite as non-notable as you indicate. Although it's primarily a local event, it has won an Emmy Award, as well as other honors, and obviously is the subject of a forthcoming film. Also, there has already been at least some discussion about that article's notability, and it passed a DYK review about 10 months ago. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read further to the part which says Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.. Woogee (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which this film is, in my view, due to the presence of reliable, secondary sources. But I understand that you disagree. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  00:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per pushing nicely at WP:GNG. With respects to User:Woogee, it is not a "future film", as principle filming has begun, ended, the film has been through post-production, and will debut before this AFD has run 7 days.  The project is completed and not at all speculative.... and as repeated sourcing shows, it is slated for debut on April 16, 2010.  And as for the argument of "non-notability" of its filmmakers... Notability is found through coverage of the subject (the film) in reliable sources... not through lack of coverage of involved individuals .  Just as notability is not inherited, neither is it dis-inherited.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG and not a case of WP:CRYSTAL (even though I understand that hasn't been cited here). WP:CRYSTAL does not rule things out merely because they haven't happened; it rules out speculative events. This is not a speculative film; the sources confirm that. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as article crosses both the verifiability and notability thresholds with coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Any "future" concerns are waived by a simple reading of the policy and that the first screening is in three days. - Dravecky (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - additional sources clearly support notability per GNG. cmadler (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2010 (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.