Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clique (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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Clique (film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable forthcoming direct-to-DVD movie. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete twice deleted prod for an extremely non-notable, direct to DVD film that has not even been released or even confirmed that it is still being released. An old, no longer updated website does not confirm it will really be released and it has no significant coverage. Fails WP:NFF and WP:N. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Consensus holds that a film in production doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL, and IMDB reports a November 11th release.   RGTraynor  17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A film confirmable to be in production is still not notable without significant coverage, and IMDB is not a reliable source. It is also still not a notable film, even if it were completed. Again, no significant coverage on it at all and it does not meet the general film notability guidelines.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IMDB is the industry-wide accepted source; it doesn't become unreliable as to release date on our sayso.   RGTraynor  17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, as far as Wikipedia goes it fails WP:RS and our say so is really all that matters. It is user-edited and therefore not a reliable source for encyclopedic work. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Users can contribute, and those contributions have to pass IMDB's editorial fact checkers.   RGTraynor  19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * well... there is Warner Bros... which is not edited by the filmakers, Flixter... also not edited by the filmakers (but only a blurb), Media.www.ramcigar.com discusses the filming last February and Pawtuckettimes.com speaks toward filming last March, Videobusiness.com speaks of how production wrapped last March and tells the interest producers had in making this a series, Celebcards.com is another pre-release blurb, and there are others (some much longer)... depending on one's search parameters. Does one of them meet your interpretation of RS? It has significant covergaqe and principle filming has ended. Release is the next step.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, Warner Brothers IS the filmmaker, so how is that not edited by the film makers? :P Flixr is nothing more than another directory style listing and is not any sign of notability. Its no different than the many many other such sites. The rest are all pre-release blurbs, not significant coverage and not significant enough beyond the usual press release stuff to make it very notable at all. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. I thought one of your issues was "An old, no longer updated website..." and wanted to show a newer often updated one from the distributer. Disregard it as not being neutral. And please disregard Flixter if you wish, as it was only included to show that WP:GNG is being address. Per significant coverage in reliable sources Videobussines, PawtucketTimes, and Media.www.ramcigar are not mere blurbs.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, per significant coverage in reliable sources, , , and .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just for the record, we have discussed imdb before and decided it isn't a reliable source. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * Comment, yes... IMDb is not 'generally' reliable except as a tertiary source for materials verified by other sources. That aside, my own search, and list of found sources do not include IMDb, and showed a notabilty per WP:GNG, which is the backbone of WP:NF. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable forthcoming direct-to-DVD movie! very notable indeed! --Kaaveh (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the new references just added to article. Film has notability because it is based on a New York Times best-selling series of books and Tyra Banks first time as a movie executive producer, and for those reasons it has been written about in a number of sources. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep movies based on insanely popular books. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Tyra Banks source tells me that it is getting coverage, and will likely get more as release date approaches. If the movie fizzles, we can revisit this in December or January, but for now, it's getting enough coverage to be notable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage in secondary sources to show it is notable. RMHED (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2008 (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.