Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Breaking Bad 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Untitled Breaking Bad film

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON article about a film that only just commenced photography a matter of days ago, and is not yet close to commercial release. I initially redirected this to the television series, only to have the creator revert me on the grounds of WP:NFF -- but NFF does not hand every forthcoming film an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's started shooting, because even films that have started shooting can still fall apart and never actually get released at all. NFF admittedly isn't crystal clear about how notability really works for films -- I'll grant that it can be interpreted the way the creator wants it to be, if you cherry-pick NFF while ignoring the rest of NFILM, but that's actually incorrect. The actual notability test for unreleased films is as follows: even once principal photography has commenced, a film is still not notable yet unless it generates a massively outsized volume of production coverage on the order of the Star Wars franchise. Most films do not receive that depth of production coverage, however, and can be referenced only to a very small handful of sources, just as this one is -- so most films are not considered notable enough for standalone articles until they have been released. Further, two of the four sources here are Uproxx and a non-notable film blog, which are unreliable sources that cannot help to establish a film's notability at all — which means that what's left is not enough coverage to get this into the "ubernotable like Star Wars" class of films instead of the "wait until a release date is confirmed" class. So no prejudice against recreation once a release date (and an actual title) have actually been announced, but making a film notable enough for a standalone article while it's still in the production pipeline requires a lot more than just one source confirmating that the film has started shooting. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep It is not “cherry picking”. The project at most needs to be filming. It also needs media coverage, which it has garnered. It’s notable and it’s so absurd that because it’s not titled yet it’s up for deletion. I used only one source to verify the filming, but I can easily add in plenty more. It passes the requirements to exist in the mainspace. Rusted AutoParts  00:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With extremely rare exceptions that require much more sourcing than has been shown here, the requirement for a film to exist in mainspace is that it has been released. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It has four sources actually. By which source do you think is a blog? The article doesn’t need to have a release date or a title to meet requirements that so silly. Rusted AutoParts  00:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which source do I think is a blog? How about the one that says it's a blog right in its own damn masthead? I'll let you go discover which one that is for yourself, but trust me that one of them does. And I said there were four sources here, but pointed out why two of them aren't cutting any ice — so what makes you think saying "it has four sources actually" is some kind of mic drop? Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s on you to bolster your claim, say the name here. And it’s not a mic drop, we’re not in a rap battle. I am battling in Defense of a Wikipedia guideline being trampled on by ones personal pickiness. Rusted AutoParts  00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already provided all the "bolstering" as I'm obligated to — the reason I'm telling you to go find it for yourself is because I want you to notice the thing you were supposed to notice before you used it as a reference in the first place, so I'm under no obligation to do your homework for you. I don't have to name the source before it's "proven" — the source's presence in the article proves itself. And if you think I'm the one being "personally picky" while you're "defending a Wikipedia guideline", then you've got that bass-ackward — I am expressing no variant personal opinions of any sort, and am simply applying NFILM exactly 100 per cent correctly to the way NFILM works: being able to source that principal photography has commenced is not a free notability pass for every unreleased film, but applies only to a select tier of hypernotable films that get a lot of coverage while most other films do have to wait until they're released. Not because I said so, but because tens of thousands of past AFD discussions on unreleased films said so. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * /Film gets cited by most reliable sources. As it's so bothersome to you it's very easily replaceable. And yes, it is your personal opinion that the articles you've nominated aren't notable. This Breaking Bad movie has been extensively discussed in the trades, and has been directly discussed by a cast member on notable talk shows. How is that not notable coverage? Rusted AutoParts  01:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For one thing, Q&A interviews in which a person who is directly associated with the film is speaking about it himself are not independent of the film — read the "reliable sources" section of NFILM, specifically the bullet point on "independence". A person who has a direct personal affiliation with the film speaking about it in his own words doesn't help to establish its notability, because he's directly affiliated with it. For another, the amount of coverage that the film has received as of this point is not "unusual", compared to most films, at all — literally any film that gets started at all can always show one or two or three sources. What it takes to make a film notable while it's still in the production pipeline is a volume of coverage that significantly exceeds what most films routinely get. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That was not the point. You mentioned “hypernotable films that get a lot of coverage”. Being discussed and promoted ona widely viewed talk show, where’s it confirmed there, is the highest possible coverage a developing project can receive. Regardless, witholding film articles until only when they get released is a disservice to readers wondering about these projects, and that isn’t what I was led to believe Wikipedia was all about. Rusted AutoParts  05:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

'''I will ask if those who feel this isn’t warranting mainspace status yet to vote for it to be returned to draftspace. It’ll be a complete waste of time for me if all the time and work I put into assembling this article is tossed away just because it doesn’t have a title yet.' Rusted AutoParts''  01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Even if the worst happens and this film ends up never seeing the inside of a cinema, it'll likely still be noteworthy enough to document what happened with its production. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. I also feel that Locke Cole makes a very salient point. Somethingwickedly (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * THE. NOTABILITY. TEST. FOR. FILMS. IS. A. COMMERCIAL. RELEASE. DATE. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WHERE. IS. THAT. IN. FILM. GUIDELINES. Rusted AutoParts  01:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "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." It's even right there in the NFF section, exactly where you said it wasn't. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And who dictates whether the production is noteworthy? You? Hate to live in that world. A film with reliably sourced production should remain, end of. Rusted AutoParts  01:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Every film can always show a source or two about its production. What makes a film notable on that basis is the ability to show a volume of sourcing that expands well beyond the simply expected and routine, as in the Star Wars or Marvel franchises. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And that’s just an unrealistic metric, and one that hardly any upcoming project not a tentpole project can ever hope to live up to. The metric/requirement that I’ve been conditioned to follow in my years on this site is we had to reliably prove the film will actually happen. IE, filming dates, location shoots, casting, when filming ends, etc. Not once has the condition that “it must be released been insisted upon. Maybe it would be easier if you showed a few examples of these AFDs you keep talking about, I’ll show you AFDs that the film not filming yet was the only reason why it was not able to be in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts  15:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Breaking Bad. At the moment, with so little to say about it, I favour the latter, but deletion is a non-starter. There is already a lot of coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per coverage, per Netflix and confirmed production.BabbaQ (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is an immense amount of coverage of the film, despite its early state (just try searching "breaking bad movie" on Google News). Even if we accept that most films should not have an article before they have a release date, this strikes me as an example that has attracted and will continue to attract an extraordinary amount of anticipation. Colin M (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable production that is going to gather a lot of interest. Good, reliable sources, and principal photography has begun. JustaFilmFan (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2019 (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.