Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terror on the Prairie


 * 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 draftify to Draft:Terror on the Prairie. Consensus is to delete, but since the film might become more notable in the future, I'll draftify the article to keep it accessible.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 05:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Terror on the Prairie

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject does not pass WP:GNG or Notability (films). Article violates WP:NFF, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:FFEXCEPTIONS doesn't give this particular film a valid exception. There is no broad or enduring coverage of this 'to-be-made for private subscription release' film. Most of the citations are primary source or based on each other. Merge the content into Daily Wire or Gina Carano until such time as the film becomes notable or, if still in production, when the production becomes notable. Of the six current citations: The two Daily Wire citations are primary source; Movieweb and Yahoo got their info from Deadline; one Deadline article covers the announcement, but doesn't cover the production (which is required per NFF); and the other Deadline article is extra fluff about another actor. So that leaves only ONE citation that is independent and could be said to contribute towards notability. That just isn't enough to pass GNG. Per WP:NFF, "Additionally, 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." 'Fired actress bucks SAG union to make film in Montana because she doesn't believe in mandatory Covid vaccines' is neither extraordinary nor notable. Delete the article until such time as it passes notability standards. Platonk (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify: I saw that this page was up and in a pretty sorry state, so I took some preliminary measures to fix it up at face value. What I propose is that this returns to a draft state, so that has the opportunity to fix the article up properly.  BOTTO ( T • C ) 16:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with Draftifying an article is that someone else will likely resubmit to RfC before the film is released and becomes notable, and some editor will approve it. Then we'll be right back here again. Platonk (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the inherent take on practically every draftified page. If it is prematurely put in the main space again, it can be reverted. I agree that it's not deserving of being in the main space yet and Dsitz10734 should have been patient and left this page incubating, but there's potential that it will be notable down the line.  BOTTO ( T • C ) 13:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is veering into the opinion piece territory - especially with new the Gabriel-Kane Day-Lewis section. It just needs to deliver on the facts, without discussing why it could be perceived as ironic or interesting.  BOTTO ( T • C ) 20:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Botto What changes to do you suggest? Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would recommend removing that entire Gabriel-Kane Day-Lewis subsection, as it's really just trivia and adds nothing substantive to the article. If anything, Gabriel-Kane's participation is notable because it's his first solid acting role, as the son of Daniel Day-Lewis. Also, that second paragraph in the lead? That would be terrific to put in the Production section down below. Terms like "going against the grain" and "counter to Hollywood standards" should be vetted for being more neutral. The fact that it is non-union is probably the most impartial element of this all.  BOTTO ( T • C ) 21:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep First, thank you for notifying me for this article's consideration for deletion. Yahoo and Deadline are notable sources. I'm wondering which sources are deemed officially "notable" here on Wikipedia? Because both of these sites are widely recognized. Also, as for the Crystal Ball policy, release dates from a project's studio are all over Wikipedia. If the studio discloses a release date, then usually that makes it onto a project's Wikipedia page- cited, of course. Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most important of all, WP:NFF clearly states that unless the production itself (as in the filming stage, see Filmmaking) is notable, then the film shouldn't have a Wikipedia article until it is (a) released, and (b) becomes notable. There has been a news release that filming started very recently. There is nothing notable about the production at this stage.
 * As for Yahoo, the problem isn't that Yahoo is or isn't notable. In this instance their article content comes from two Deadline articles and is just churnalism. If you're going to 'count' how many agencies report on a movie, then it should be mostly independently-generated (aka fresh) reporting, not recycled from some other online source which has already been 'counted'.
 * Just because the people who are making this movie run their own media 'empire' and know how to push information out through their cohort channels, doesn't making the idea of this movie notable. Notable means of interest to multiple independent sources. At this stage, we have one independent source, Deadline. But even if we had multiple independent sources, that wouldn't override the parameters of NFF.
 * It doesn't matter that there are other "upcoming" films "all over Wikipedia". They may have notable production stages, or maybe they are also in violation of NFF and need to be removed until those films are released and become notable. There is no need to suggest we break a Wikipedia guideline because others have done so.
 * Perhaps you should read Planned films. Platonk (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete based on a first reading of the article. An article should speak for itself as to why it is notable, and this article does not indicate significant coverage of the production.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s good enough for a future film to have a reliable source stating that principle photography has commenced, the point of this being that the base standard of the WP:GNG is temporarily lessened. In this case, that article does not include such a reliable source, the youtube source is not good enough, not a reliable source.  If no such source appears, then draftify.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @SmokeyJoe Here's one, from the distributing studio: https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-releases-details-on-new-gina-carano-project-terror-on-the-prairie — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Dswitz10734 (talk • contribs) 9:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP lists The Daily Wire as an unreliable source. Can you do better? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @SmokeyJoe Maybe this one? Deadline is listed as reliable (WP:RSPDEADLINE). https://deadline.com/2021/10/gina-carano-mandalorian-daily-wire-western-terror-on-prairie-mma-cowboy-cerrone-1234854785/ Dswitz10734 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that’s a good source for commencement of filming. Put that source in, and get the YouTube source out.  Strip back anything not coming for a reliable independent source.


 * Keep . There is coverage in reliable sources (apparently it’s an “under-the-radar western”), and principle photography has commenced, so it is good for mainspace.  It qualifies at least for WP:STUB. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC) changed to “merge and redirect”, below.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:4meter4, have you noted the contention in different readings of NFF?
 * But more specifically, what fact/sentence whatever on the page fails WP:CRYSTAL. I don’t think anything does. Everything is sourced and reported in past tense, including the line “ The Daily Wire's Jeremy Boreing announced that the film would premiere in spring 2022.”  This announcement is NOT NOTCRYSTALBALL. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I edited the article; details on its talk page. The result, with regards to notability or not, is that there are only two articles which could count towards notability: The Deadline article and the Newsweek article, just three days apart. The two Daily Wire citations don't count towards notability as they are primary sources, and the second Deadline article (about Gabriel) is just a brief announcement about him; an addendum to the other article just three days before. Platonk (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Robert and Platonk. Fails GNG if it is for subscription members only and the sourcing is inadequate – the Daily Wire is unreliable. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The “first” release promised to subscribers is unimportant and cut. DailyWire sourcing cut, including material sourced from it, except for naming three of the cast which is uncontenious. Passing NFF is established by the RS Deadline WP:RSPDEADLINE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * By your edit removing the information that the film will be released for Daily Wire subscribers only (which is mentioned in every source), then you leave the Wikipedia reader with the impression that this film will be placed in movie theaters. I have read no such plan in any of the many citations for this article that I've read in the last two weeks. I have, however seen: The plan is to first release the film exclusively to DailyWire.com members in spring 2022. The Hurt Locker outfit Voltage Pictures is handling international sales, (Deadline); and The movie is set to release first exclusively through streaming to DailyWire.com members in spring 2022 with international sales going through distributor Voltage Pictures. (Newsweek). Those two statements (which were based on interviews with Carano and Borering), lead me to believe it will go from subscriber-streaming to DVD sales. Do you have a source that says it will go to general release to theaters (not a citation for the article, just one to settle this ambiguity)? Platonk (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Platonk, note the word “first”. To me it implies a wider release to follow, and a few days later would be my guess. If you are right, if this is a straight to subscribers and that’s it, only, release, then that changes the picture for me.  Yes, I assumed it was intended to go to general release in theatres.  I do not believe that the permissive reading of NFF was intended for straight to VHS release, indeed I am sure it was not.  I had not thought to seek verification that general release to theatres was intended. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The last film Daily Wire released/distributed was also a subscriber-only film, Run Hide Fight, which earned a paltry $20K in revenue (international). Platonk (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does Voltage Pictures release to theatres? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. So if they're only contracted for 'international sales', then I don't see Daily Wire as planning a release to domestic/USA cinemas. Platonk (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus appears to be stuck on whether to delete or draftify in response to the WP:CRYSTAL claims. More input from others is recommended. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep An announcement from the producing studio about beginning production isn't WP:CrystalBall. As for notability, this film has coverage from major media outlets such as Deadline. Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Dswitz10734 already voted and gave input.  BOTTO ( T • C ) 22:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Botto It was relisted so I voted again because of relist.
 * That's not what re-listing entails. It simply means that it's been brought to the forefront again, so it can garner further input. All the previous votes are accounted for, though it's not about quantity, so much as the quality of the arguments and general consensus.  BOTTO ( T • C ) 19:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I'm not voting to delete, by the way. It's just that it could confuse the reviewer(s).  BOTTO ( T • C ) 05:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Dswitz10734 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Platonk (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per above. Best Regards.--- ✨Lazy Maniik✨  05:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user . ✗  plicit  14:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage about the film is mixed in with the rest to count as significant coverage in reliable sources.    D r e a m Focus  22:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into The Daily Wire. -- Valjean (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into The Daily Wire. There is more than enough verifiable information for coverage, and no good reason to delete material or contributions from the available page history. Retracting “meets NFF” on the basis that this is not a film for general cinematic release, but is better considered a product of The Daily Wire for their subscribers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 31 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.