Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puberty (American Psychology 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 delete. Sources were provided but found insufficient to establish consensus. A redirect to the producer or the production company might be considered but neither currently contains any info about the film.  So Why  09:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Puberty (American Psychology film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See film notability guidelines. Films that are not yet released are only notable if the production itself is notable. This article says nothing about the production itself, and appears to be promotional rather than about the production. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: I fell for the variety of references offered and ended up overlooking WP:NFF. No evidence that principal photography has begun and therefore should be deleted.  Jupitus Smart  04:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not sure about the reliability of the Movie Insider reference. But since an admin thinks its believable enough, then there is no further point in harping WP:NFF, as the movie is otherwise notable.  Jupitus Smart  10:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  04:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 *  Delete per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 *  Delete - WP:CRYSTALBALL, Maybe later after the films theatrical release WP:TOOSOON.  FITINDIA   10:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As apparently this project has completed filming, is currently in post production, and has received a great deal of coverage. Per Variety (1), Variety (2), Bloody Disgusting (1), BLoody Disgusting (2),Pan Armenian, Joblo, Ramascreen, Dread Central, Salon, Movie Insider and others WP:NFF appears met.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not accurate. The Salon article is from 2013 and doesn't mention the film at all. The Movie Insider link is just a placeholder doesn't have anything to say about the film. The Panarmenian article is just a copy of the Variety article and doesn't add anything. Bloody Disgusting has 2 very short articles, largely made up of quotes. Rama Screen isn't a reliable source. The remainder are mostly run-of-the-mill articles saying "X is attached to project Y". Not convinced this meets requirements for WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck it. Oops.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alts:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: for analysis of supplied refs

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night  fury  10:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To analyse the refs.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  05:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy/draftify or delete as too soon. The coverage is trivial and routine and mostly regurgitating other media reports or press releases (see my analysis above). It's possible for an in-production film to have notability if there is in-depth analysis of the production process, but it must be something beyond "X signed for film Y and previously did Z". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON - its release may have been affected by A Cure for Wellness, which sounds like a very similar movie. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:14, 3 August 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.