Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrogate (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. The draft page still exists at Draft:Surrogate (film), work on the article there and then request a new review. It is not helpful to have a mainspace page and a draft page in existence at the same time. Inexperienced users are well advised to go through the Articles for Creation process rather than creating articles directly in mainspace. SpinningSpark 23:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Surrogate (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Surrogate (film)

This is an unreleased film, scheduled for release in November 2021. Nothing in this article indicates that the production of the film satisfies general notability. The three general references do not establish notability, because two are the director's own, and one is IMDB. This article was moved from article space to draft space by a reviewer, but the author then moved a copy into article space, so that it is in both draft space and article space, but does not satisfy film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep has two independent references now. Yes is early but has been made, is coming, and is being discussed in secondary sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NFF IMO, specifically "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is also a suspicion of mine that two main contributing editors (Dream1924 and Dreamoutloud19) could be one with WP:SPA. Kolma8 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is evidence of reader excitement in anticipation of the movie. Readers expect the article to exist, and want to add it it.  This is the wiki way.  This is how Wikipedia attracts new editors.  Blocking the enthusiastic newcomers and SALTing missing article titles in not how to attract and retain new editors.
 * I think the two blocked accounts look like friends, or the one person using different accounts on different computers because they forgot their password. In any case, obvious newcomers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am quite confused with what's going on. The 'Surrogate film' as per the articles is about to be completed and released. It has already had advanced publicity and articles written about it when it won screenplay competitions and when it completed production.


 * Wikipedia is very confusing for a beginner and the 1st time I created the article it wouldn't even allow me to access 'review draft' or 'more/move'option after writing the content. A few days later I tried again by setting up a second user to be able to ' and now am not sure which one of the drafts you are referring to. If you tell me which user version you are debating article on Dreamoutloud19 or Dream1924 I can delete the other account.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.193.141.109 (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I sure hope that you did not interpreter my comment as directed personally at you, assuming you are Dream1924 and/or Dreamoutloud19. The comment is in regards of whether or not the article you have created meets criteria to be on Wikipedia. Please continue contribute to Wikipedia but do so IAW WP guidance and philosophy. A good point to start is reading WP:FIRST and WP:NOT, for the films/movies articles please read WP:NFILM. Good luck Kolma8 (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. The coverage for this is pretty light, too light for it to pass NFF at this point in time. Sending it to AfC/draftspace so it can be incubated for a little while and then resubmitted once more coverage comes available is always a possibility. However at this point in time there's just not really enough. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi what do you mean the coverage is pretty light at this stage? What does the page require for a a film that is about to be released to be on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream1924 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:
 * Comment -
 * 1. Planned films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation).  These planned films do not satisfy film notability.
 * 2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released.  These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage.  Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
 * 3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined primarily by reception and reviews.

This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production. Category:AfC comment templates An analysis of the sources shows that only sources 7 and 8 are about the film. Only source 8 is about production of the film. Source 7 is a passing mention, and is not about production of the film. Source 8 is about production, but it based on an interview. The sources do not establish that production has met general notability, probably because it has not done so.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NFF. Platonk (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NFF. Principle photography has commenced.  And has finished, it is in post-production, and release is imminent. It might even be released before the conclusion of this AfD.  Between now and release, there will continue to be new sources, and new readers wanting Wikipedia’s quality coverage, and budding new editors who will keep trying to make the missing article if it is not there.  NFF does not require the GNG, but is permission to exist in anticipation of quality sources that are coming.  If they don’t come, then delete about a week after release, when NFF no longer applies.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand WP:NFF.
 * First criteria, the film has to have some sort of notability, WP:GNG. ❌
 * Second criteria, NFF requires at minimum that filming/production has begun. ✅
 * Third criteria, the filing/production has to be notable. ❌
 * So this article should be moved to draft space until such time as the film has been released and is notable. Platonk (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understood NFF very well many years ago. What you are describing is absurdity. First and third criteria as you describe serve to nullify the essence of NFF.
 * if the GNG is meet, there is no need for NFF. The point of NFF is for when the GNG is not (clearly) met.
 * Also note, the GNG is a guideline, and it can’t cover everything. It doesn’t cover future films, NFF is for that.
 * The base policy is WP:PSTS. It limits content.  If there are no secondary sources there can be no content.  There is, however, WP:STUB.
 * The first and third criteria as written need severe weakening. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - I have reviewed the history of NFF. It has not changed substantively since 2008.  Either you are referring to a version of NFF that was superseded in 2008, or there have been two competing interpretations of NFF for thirteen years.  In any case, if you think that the criteria need 'severe weakening', that would be a good comment to make at the film notability talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What is absurd is you thinking that GNG is the finish line, not the starting gate, and yet this article hasn't even made it to the race. Per WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, ... If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." This article doesn't come close to meeting the criteria for a standalone article. And whatever NFF policy might have said 'years ago' must not be what it says today. If you disagree with a guideline or policy, then bring it up on the appropriate noticeboard or talk page; this AfD ain't it. Platonk (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is it. AfD is where decisions are made.  The notability guidelines are predictors of what AfD will decided. Without care, this becomes circular.
 * These films should be kept because they will be notable very soon, and for Wikipedia to be a timely resource, it needs an article for references to be added to as they arise. In the meantime, it meets WP:STUB.  The current articles has a lot less poor quality sources than I saw in draft, but it can be pared down further. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I edited the article to fix citation and external link violations, and did some formatting and corrections. (Sorry,, that messes with the counters on your table above.) Platonk (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:Platonk - It appears that you removed six of the references. I don't think that removing the references in an article that has been nominated for deletion is a good idea.  I know that you and I think that they do not provide significant coverage, but other editors may disagree.  I have inserted the changed numbers in the table, but I dislike the idea of removing references.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The reasons were in the the edit summaries. The first three were actually external links to actress websites masquerading as citations; they verified no content whatsoever. The next three were off the wall articles completely irrelevant to the topic of the wiki article, and didn't support any of the article content at all. I would defend those particular edits whether the article was being considered at AfD or not. I'm not sure whether you are objecting to the edits, or the timing of them. I've never seen an AfD where someone complained about editing an article during AfD (unless it was a bad or wrong edit). If that were the policy, then a caution against editing would be part of the AfD banner on the article page, but instead the banner includes "Feel free to improve the article", so I did. Sometimes you have to make such edits to see what is left to work with. And sometimes the other AfD participants need to see what we're left to work with. The emperor has no clothes. Platonk (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Should the article be called The Surrogate (2021 film)? StrayBolt (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes.
 * Surrogates (film), a 2009 film based on the comic book series
 * The Surrogate (1984 film), a Canadian erotic film starring Art Hindle
 * The Surrogate (1995 film), a TV movie starring Alyssa Milano
 * The Surrogate (2020 film), an American LGBT-related Independent drama film
 * The Surrogate, original title of The Sessions, a 2012 film starring John Hawkes, Helen Hunt, and William H. Macy
 * SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2021 (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.