Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heaven Project


 * 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. Production began in April 2007, so it meets the threshold for WP:NFF; the three third-party articles in references, plus the ELs given in this discussion, seem sufficient to meet WP:N. Krakatoa Katie  03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Heaven Project

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:NFF, specifically: but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Just because one of the actors may be a notable star, doesn't make the production itself notable. -- ALLSTAR  echo 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it passes WP:NFF, see here. Or would you like to offer a complete sentence for a deletion rationale? hateless 00:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't really see how this fails WP:NFF. You can view the trailer for this film here and here is at least one article where this film is mentioned. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Well known actors connected to the movie make it notable. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: And how many of them received significant awards or significant and reliable press coverage? Or have the box-office draw of someone like Tom Cruise or the critical acclaim of someone like Meryl Streep? — Becksguy (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The actors Paul Walker and Linda Cardellini are clearly notable having played leading roles in major films. Trying to compare their fame to two of the biggest movie stars ever is unreasonable (also not all notable actors win awards). And, yes, they have both had significant and reliable press coverage (look at the movies they have had major roles in!). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per above. A couple of pre-release headlines to further affirm the keep: Walker enters 'Heaven' and Mandeville's in 'Heaven'. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be notable, some sources from: AOL, the New York Times , Yahoo , MSN , Variety , BIFA , the BBC . Guest9999 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]]
 * Keep Notable upcoming film, plenty of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice per nom. I just don't see any sufficiently notable sources about this forthcoming movie. The New York Times is just announcing it without any significant coverage. The Variety articles also essentially don't do much more than announce the movie, and IMDB or trailers don't count for notability per se. Same for other sources. It's not like the pre-release press coverage for The Passion of the Christ or Brokeback Mountain, for example, which clearly were notable before release. I believe it violates WP:NFF per the nom quote of the guidelines. At least at this point in time. — Becksguy (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, since film has not been released, and no evidence has yet been presented in the article that the production itself is notable. In fact, so far, the article has no references at all. Cardamon (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review the comments above that provide more than sufficient evidence of notability. It's a matter of referencing what we know is now notable. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, no secondary sources that assert the notability of this film (what amounts to an announcement that it exists doesn't really confer notability). Lankiveil (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Yes, it does. Variety qualifies as a third-party, reliable source, and it has provided significant coverage of this film before its release, which is in line with the notability guidelines for future films. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As Becksguy pointed out above, the Variety articles essentially don't do much more than announce the movie. That's hardly notable. Just because it has a notable actor in it, doesn't make the production itself notable and so does not meet WP:NFF. ALLSTAR  echo 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. I've just used the sources to indicate the background of the project -- that it originated in September 2005, experienced a delay, and began production in April 2007, not to mention the belated join-up by an actress.  I think you underestimate coverage from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter -- there are many, many films that do not get significant coverage from them.  It doesn't matter if it's an "announcement" -- the articles are significant in their coverage, not just passing mentions.  This film isn't by any means going to be a blockbuster, but it's determined enough notability at this point to warrant inclusion. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember to be considered notable a topic doesn't just have to have been mentioned by secondary sources, it has to have recieved "significant coverage" Guest9999 (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]]
 * WP:N: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. These articles do just that.  The headlines are focused on the topic, and the content is focused on the topic.  These really aren't passing mentions at all like the example at WP:N about the band Three Blind Mice in a Bill Clinton biography. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep based on satisfaction of WP:NFF. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources above from Andrew (above) satisfies requirements.  Somebody want to stick those into the article for the time being? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Working on that now, actually. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, actually the sources don't satisfy WP:NFF if you look at them carefully. Variety, although providing more than a passing mention, is essentially just a press release announcement, with no significant and no intellectually independent coverage in a trade publication. Essentially all it does is list, in prose form, the kind of data that IMDB lists:  production company, screenwriters, cast, yadda, yadda. Not a reliable source in this case. Do any of the people involved have an Academy Award? Is the movie headed to Sundance, or Cannes? Is the director a famous auteur? Although notability isn't inherited. Any articles on the film in a serious magazine on film criticism? Have any mainstream journalistic or academic film critics discussed it?  Note that the NYT mention is just a listing, nothing more, and doesn't count, and neither do the rest of the listings provided. It's just another Hollywood product until sufficiently reliable sources say it's notable. The article's subject lacks intrinsic notability at this time, and that can't be fixed with editing, otherwise I would be arguing to keep, as I have many times before (to the point of probably being considered an inclusionist by some). — Becksguy (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument has been that this film has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party published sources, namely Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. I would caution against your attempt to "dissect" these sources.  Because they are trade papers and only providing descriptive details with the film not yet out, they may sound like press release announcements, but they are not.  Neither papers are studio-represented; they qualify as secondary sources.  I don't believe your other suggestions (Sundance, Cannes, Award) are appropriate for the film in this stage since it is not released yet.  I am not arguing to keep the article on the basis of the relatively notable cast members of Walker and Cardellini, nor the website listings, of which there can be many.  Variety and The Hollywood Reporter hardly cover every film that's ever going to be made, so there's no reason to cast doubt on their coverage about The Heaven Project when they cannot procure an article about every project in the making.  The coverage is relatively minimal, sure, but it's still enough.  I've edited articles on upcoming films for some time, and while I wish I could reflect my experiences to you in a sentence or two, all I can do is impart the fact that many upcoming films that range in scale will lack unquestionable coverage in their early stages.  As far as I'm concerned, this film article has crossed the threshold with its existing coverage, and while I can't guarantee it, more will likely follow. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you for a long and constructive response, Erik. I can see your point, but I still think the two trade publications are more press releases than articles about the film (although I now agree that they are third party). If they had discussed it in terms of something more than just unadorned production related facts, in other words, something significant, I would agree with you. Nine months before Brokeback Mountain was released, there was buzz about it's being a Oscar contender, for example. That's the kind of coverage that's needed to make an unreleased film notable (although not to the same degree obviously). And my comment about the Awards was not about the movie, it was about the people associated with the film. If Johnny Depp was one of the stars we wouldn't be having this discussion, but Walker and the others are not A-list stars, or household names, not yet anyway (I had to look him up). Also, if this had been a AfD about a "X in popular culture" article, those references would not be accepted. I know, after having gone through several very stressful AfDs defending those kinds of articles. Frankly, I'm surprised at myself for being on the opposite side of the debate table in this particular AfD, but intellectual honesty forces me to argue against what I see as intrinsic non-notability at this time, despite my preferences. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that part of the issue is that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter tend to be industry-focused, so they may impart details that don't seem very significant about the film to the majority of people. (Just take a look at their latest headlines -- they're not very interesting outside of certain major announcements that make some fans salivate.)  I was actually looking at the existing citations and thinking, "They probably reported about the film because of the names of Walker and Cardellini."  They've been the highlights for two of the articles, so while this is just an educated guess, I think that's why the film was mentioned at all.  Articles at either trade paper tend to provide some coverage when it's either A) a notable director, B) a notable cast member, or C) a notable premise (such as being based on source material or franchise).  If this film didn't have any of these, it wouldn't have gotten any coverage.  From what I can tell, B qualifies with Walker and Cardellini being, not super-notable names but rather, some-notable names.  While I'm just speculating here, it seems to show that the names do have some weight.  Also, regarding the role switch at AFD, it's been interesting for me, too, since I recommend to delete more often than keep.  Special circumstances, I suppose. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep due to the listed cites; they clearly qualify as third-party, even if coverage is as yet minimal. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:49, 12 January 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.