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 delete. Sandstein 08:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicron[edit]

Omnicron (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)

WP:TOOSOON, movies cannot have an article until reliable sources claim that filming has started. 2Joules (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC) striking nominator as a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In fact it also fails by just general notability rules, as there don't seem to be any suitable sources at all for this iteration (vs the 1963 film), let alone ones that indicate principal photography has commenced Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Upcoming films are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because IMDb and a Twitter tweet from the director technically verify that the film is in the production pipeline — as far as IMDb is concerned, for example, as of right now the film is still only in pre-production. And the inclusion test isn't even just "filming has started", either — for the vast majority of films, notability hinges on commercial and/or festival release, and only a very select few especially high profile projects that get constant coverage throughout the process, such as the Star Wars franchise, get to claim notability just because filming is in progress. So no prejudice against recreation if and when the film is actually in release and getting reviewed by critics, but nothing here is a valid reason for a Wikipedia article to already exist today. I also strongly suspect a direct conflict of interest here, since the creator's been very nearly an SPA for Caillou Pettis over several years, beginning when Caillou Pettis was "known" only for a short Batman fanfilm. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFILM. The director's article has been repeatedly recreated by sockpuppets, and this article appears to be just another sock creation (see these SPIs). Nanophosis (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:20, 6 July 2018 (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.