Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Release strategy of Up in the Air


 * 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   merge to Up in the Air (film). Cirt (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Release strategy of Up in the Air

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I've never seen a page like this for any other film. I don't see anything particularly notable about the way in which Up in the Air was released. Macarion (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge Merge with Up in the Air. Clearly insufficiently notable to justify its own article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to the main film article. No notability outside the film asserted. Dancarney (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note that Up in the Air (film) still has quite a healthy-sized section on Release Strategy, so it would be appreciated if merge votes would specify whether they really mean that all these additional details need to be put back into that section. If you don't agree with keeping the article on its own, a redirect (or just delete, as this is an unlikely search term) would seem to make more sense. Propaniac (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Propaniac. If anyone wants to take time doing a merge, the best idea IMO is to park a copy at Talk:Up in the Air/Draft or some similar title, advise on the talk page of that article, and leave it up to interested editors to follow up. It's not our job to execute complicated merges. The topic is obviously not notable in its own merit. Chutznik (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge trim it down and merge the salient details. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there details in this article, that are not currently present in the Release Strategy section at Up in the Air (film), that you believe should be merged back into the film article? Propaniac (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the section is large enough, but there may be details that others would want merged back in, and I would have no problem with the section being expanded with additional information from this fork. If a merge vote is the majority vote then the article can be stripped back then merged once it is down to an agreed size and this article would become a redirect or deleted. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have delusions of Up in the Air (film) becoming a GA or even an FA article some day, so I would like other editors to be very judicious in what we put back into that article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * GA or FA are noble aims, I trimmed the plot with those aims in mind, but an AfD is not the place to work this out. The talk page of the film article, or talk page of this article would be that place. If the majority opinion is to merge this information then the article will stay until that is done, or until another editor becomes frustrated and starts a second AfD. Either way this is not the place for merge suggestions, especially as that would assume the end result of an ongoing AfD, and if the majority of editors feel this article fails the GNG then it should be deleted. If you want to put the time in then userfy this article and allow the deletion and then prepare the merge in userspace and add it back to the main article or trim the article back to the bare essentials and show those voting delete what you want to merge and get them to change delete to merge votes. All editors should be working at all times to make every article on wikipedia a GA or FA, but merge proposals can't be handled adequately in the middle of a deletion procedure. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment If "Merge" ends up as the consensus of this AFD, and none of the "Merge" votes bother to address what exactly should be merged, I would hope the closing admin simply redirects the term instead of picking arbitrary information to stick back in the film article. The content currently in the film article reflects what was deemed to be the most important information -- what would be merged from this spin-off if it weren't already present. Propaniac (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am in full agreement with Propaniac. None of the "Merge" votes have clearly adressed what exactly should be merged. Redirecting the term seems to be the better option here.-- BIG FOUR    ! ! ! !  05:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)  User has been blocked, refer to Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.
 * Comment This article was originally the contents of Up in the Air (film). Under the advice of a number of other editors, including Propaniac, we trimmed that section down to better fit the standards of WikiProject Films. Merging the contents or a sub-set thereof of this article back into Up in the Air (film) is probably not viable. My personal preference would be to keep this article and refine it, since I developed most of contents of Up in the Air (film) as Jason Reitman, George Clooney, Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga were promoting the film. I do, however, admit to feelings of parenthood towards Up in the Air (film) and this article, so I do not have an unbiased point of view in this matter. This article may have already served its purpose and may have outlived its usefulness. Regardless, I believe there is interesting or unusual, albeit not notable to many people, information in this article:
 * 1) Jason Reitman indicated that he could relate to that lifestyle of the lead character, Ryan Bingham, and he enjoys it himself. Reitman said, "I think when you're in an airplane it's the last refuge for the people who enjoy being alone and reading a book." This provides insight into why Reitman spent so much time on the road promoting his films and why he chose to adapt the Walter Kirn's book Up in the Air.
 * 2) Reitman documented his experiences promoting the film. He took photos of everyone who interviewed him and recorded videos in each and every city he visited. He edited these images together into a short video titled Lost In The Air: The Jason Reitman Press Tour Simulator. This video provides insight into the film release process.
 * 3) Peter Sciretta of /Film and Alex Billington of Firstshowing.net interviewed Jason Reitman on video at the Telluride Film Festival in a Gondola.   Their interview is cited as Up in the Air (film) and Up in the Air (film), but not included in this article. Jason Reitman can be seen taking video of Mr. Sciretta and Mr. Billington during the interview. Reitman's video is included in Lost in the Air.
 * 4) Up in the Air was principally filmed in St. Louis, Missouri. Up in the Air was the centerpiece for the 18th Annual St. Louis International Film Festival with Jason Reitman and Michael Beugg in attendance. Kevin Renick, a St. Louis musician who wrote the song Up in the Air, performed half an hour prior to the screening. Yukon Jake, a local St. Louis band who performed during the wedding scene in Up in the Air, provided entertainment during the party held prior to the screening.
 * 5) Paramount flew 50 members of the press to New York with Anna Kendrick, Sad Brad Smith and representatives of American Airlines to promote Up in the Air. The film was shown on the aircraft's video monitors during the flight from New York to Los Angeles. American Airlines provided the Boeing 767 gratis. Smith performed a few songs including Help Yourself in the aisle of the aircraft. I have not been able to find another example of a press conference for a film being held in aircraft flying coast to coast.
 * 6) American Airlines and Hilton Hotels were heavily involved in the production, filming and promotion of Up in the Air. Including that information in the main article seems like it would be tangential, but it would be more appropriate for this article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just my two cents here, but this is an well-written, unusual article with interesting contents. Zmalk (talk) 08:07, 1 February 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.