Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapture (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 no consensus. Petros471 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Second nomination here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this being considered for deletion? It is detailed and informative about a future British film. It has lots of References

Rapture (film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a spam vehicle for the casting call and the online company running it, and the director. I wikified it, but the spam sections come back. 99DBSIMLR 17:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's spam, it's about a film coming out next year! The references to the casting call and online company are gone. What's wrong with having details about the director on there? - unsigned comment by 


 * Comment - in originally sumitted form, delete as promotional. Reeks of WP:COI too. But see updated comment. Tearlach 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are films in production not allowed on Wikipedia? The film has been featured in Total Film and The Sun so it seems legit. Celine29 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC) — Celine29 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Certainly (see, for instance, Live Free or Die Hard). But there are criteria such as notability, and we take a dim view of advertising. NewsBank finds about three UK newspaper references in Feb 2007; the chief interest for the papers was the novel casting method. You can say all that in a paragraph. Tearlach 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean and the Die Hard series is certainly more well known, but I didn't realise that smaller, independent films weren't allowed on Wikipedia. Can we Wikify this article rather than deleting it? I don't see how it's advertising any more than any of the other films on here, it's of interest to the British public, particularly those living in London, where the film will be produced. Celine29 18:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that smaller, independent films weren't allowed on Wikipedia
 * I didn't say that. All I'd say is, level of detail should be appropriate to notability. It's advertising in the sense of giving contact detals and excessive biographical detail of a very minor director who, even though I'm interested in film, I wouldn't know from a hole in the ground; and in the 'teaser' style and similar excessive detail on content and characters (all of which can be summed up as "a near-future urban crime thriller").
 * It could be wikified: but bottom line is, are you and Boooo22 connected with the project? Tearlach 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue who Booo is, I'm not connected with the project - i know someone who entered the casting call and as a producer myself was interested in it. Hope that's not a crime! :) I'm glad it's not been deleted because I truly believe it to be a worthy article, but I don't understand why it has to be so brief when there is a lot more information out there about it, such as a synopsis and character breakdowns? I guess I'll leave it to you more experienced Wikipedia users. Celine29 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete article seems to be more promotional than anything else, also agree with the WP:COI as well. I'm also concerned a newly created editor's very first edit is to an AfD, that always raises a red flag with me. Wildthing61476 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've done loads of edits before but only just created an account because I helped with this page and wanted to explain why it shouldn't be deleted. Can we just Wikify it instead of deleting it? If you tell me what needs to be done I will edit it? Celine29 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've wikified it to what I think is an appropriate level of detail. Tearlach 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Good job in wikifying the article Tearlach! In this current format I would Keep the article. Wildthing61476 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep provisional on it staying in the vicinity of this form. Tearlach 19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Dangerously close to spam, but the recent wikifying of the article seems to have nudged it just over the border into the land of encyclopedic tone.  Ford MF 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Crystalballery. A forthcomming release by a major film studio would be okay (as long as it were confirmed) but to have an article on a film in production by fringe players would be crystalling on the basis that all manner of things could happen to prevent the film ever being released. A1octopus 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep Since efforts have been made to make the article more encyclopedic, it should be kept if its quality could be further improved.--Kylohk 10:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: When I first nominated it, 85% of the article were casting call descriptions of every single role to be cast (age, weight, etc). It was full of spam links for the online casting call company. The rest was just a resume for the unnotable director. After I cleaned it up, all that was left were a couple of unencyclopedic lines about the plot. 99DBSIMLR 11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The current edit looks much better...99DBSIMLR 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't understand why this "upcoming film" does not have an entry at the IMDB or apparently independantly elsewhere (I had to manually check, since the authors of the article did not provide a link; and now I see why).  I would be inclined to move to Delete as non-notable, because if even the IMDB is apparently ignoring it (or is ignorant of it), then it cannot be all that notable.  I am also concerned about the lack of quality significant secondary sources that acknowledge the film and expound on its importance (or the importance of the actors or production / crew).  The "reliable sources" listed seem to be information provided by the producers, which seems a bit dubious.  What if the whole thing is a fraud?  Can we prove it is not, or at least provide evidence to indicate it is not just a "maybe" project?  Or, if the thing falls through financially and they pull the rug on the thing, and it never gets produced or aired, do we keep the article?  If the answer is "well, no" then it probably fails notability (whatever that means today, given the dispute).  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep : I would like to see this expanded about the part of the online casting call. That, by itself, seems to be somewhat notable as it is not something you ordinarily see in a film. Slavlin 04:52, 18 May 2007 (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.