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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free the Nipple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NFF; no indication the production of this film was notable itself. I don't think the crowdfunding angle qualifies nor the fact that theaters don't want it. Page is also unreferenced. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless independent references are provided sharpish. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AKA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Keep per being an unreleased film whose production exceeds coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Per WP:NRVE, lacking use of sources does not equate to non-notability and simply requires editorial attention. It should also be spoken of in the article on director Lina Esco. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the production of the film notable? I would also note that one of the references offered is a piece written by the director herself, who has an interest in promoting her film. As pointed out by Graeme below, the campaign seems more notable than this film, perhaps the article should be refocused. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production itself may be considered notable through WP:SIGCOV, which explains that no source has to be solely about a topic, just so long as the source speaks toward the topic directly and in a non-trivial manner. Under WP:PRIMARY the director is allowed to offer information about her film, it is simply that her words do not impart notability. We have no expectation that the film will be subject of in-depth analysis or commentary until after it is released. And a refocus to be about the campaign would be a reason for editing or creation of a new article about the campaign, but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep after looking I found 4 newspaper articles on the topic, but I will say that the campaign is more notable than the film, which is only part of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nice amount of discussion among sources. — Cirt (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the above comments, I withdraw this nomination. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Whoever wrote this article should have written it about the campaign first and then considered an article on the film. Having a standalone article for the film seems WP:UNDUE.--Launchballer 08:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, no more "UNDUE" than any documentary film article which speaks about its film's production and inspiration and filmmaker. You're welcome to write one about the campaign, but as the film is sourcable and has coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3), we can let this stay and grow over time and through regular editing. As for the campaign, with both being creative children of Lina Esco, it and this film are deeply intertwined. The film will either outlast the campaign or encourage it, and the campaign can be included in the article about the film. More importantly, even were the campaign to be a blip and go away next week, the film will remain. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And thanks to User:MichaelQSchmidt for his edits. It's got the references it needs. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.