Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth About Lies (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The result was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The Truth About Lies (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Demonstrates why WP:CRYSTAL exists. This speculatory article ended up with only one acceptable source which is now 30 months out-of-date. Despite this film supposedly being due for release this month, there has been barely even a hint of rumour about its status more recent than a year ago. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 00:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn - In an interesting turn-about, the original article has been BOLDly replaced with an up-to-date article about a different film with the same name. I hold this to have fulfilled the deletion process. The new article is certainly acceptable so the AFD has no reason to continue. Well done, MichaelQSchmidt for an inspired piece of BOLD editing! ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 16:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 00:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep sources show movie is being filmed, no reason to delete article because it will be recreated soon. Delete Notability not established.   Borock (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: if kept, this should be moved to The Truth About Lies. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Even the one ref appears to have been nothing more than a rumour. Keep for now given that it appears to meet WP:NFF and is headed in the right direction per WP:NYF. (Mark, that's funny assuming you meant it as a joke.) VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm wondering if this was ultimately a dropped project or if they replaced the director and two lead actors. I can't find anything about the plot in the ScreenDaily article and that's really the only mention of this director or Piper acting in this film. I'm guessing that it was dropped, as Piper is still has a pretty sizable fan following that would be mentioning any developments in the fan forums if there were anything out there. The complete lack of forum chatter past the SD announcement is pretty telling. I'm wondering though, if it was transformed into this movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Things have changed since that source was first writen in 2011. Seethis. I have addressed that earlier gossipy information for this finished film.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I couldn't find anything to show this movie is still in any stage of planning. For that matter, I couldn't find anything to show that the other film by the same name is particularly noteworthy either, so even if it was made into that (which I doubt) the other film wouldn't pass GNG either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good- good job Schmidt! Keep it now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, sufficient sources now. Good recovery, even if it seems to be a different film (chuckle). Delete but do not snow close: allow time for deeper searching. I searched very far and wide, but I wonder if, with the even deeper search-fu, could find anything about it. --Lexein (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, . If it's got Billie Piper in it, it's gotta be good! I have a spotty Internet connection at the moment so I can't help you out there right now, I'll try to see about researching this at a later point in time. Happy Holidays, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Having been shot in New York the one 2011 source is A) very old, and B) quite inaccurate. So let's change directions why don't we? Keep and allow improvements, or Incubate for a short time.  Deletion is really the last resort. We have notables involved and the thing is apparently completed and in announced as in post production.  It serves the greater good to allow it to be returned to mainspace once it is released and the subject of media attention.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: the earlier article contained information that was poorly sourced and misleading. The improved version is something upon which we CAN build.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It may well be that London-based "Motion Picture House" planned to make a film by this title, and THAT was the topic of a planned film spoken about in the article first brought to AFD. But it seems that one died aborning... Motion Picture House no longer lists it among their projects... and in the intervening time another film by the same name has been completed in New York. The original author started his article in good faith and based solely upon that one source. Since it speaks about a "project-in-development" only, it would have failed WP:NFF at that time. It was easier to modify this article to be about the MADE film and not the speculated one.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems the most plausible explanation. The original film described was UK-based and had different producers, director and cast. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 16:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, per excellent research by, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2013 (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.