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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canyon[edit]

The only sources that I can find for this movie is this and this. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently looking for other sources. Hda3ku (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of now I've found this Hda3ku (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:NF. JamesBurns (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wait, since the film hasn't been released but filming has started doesn't that mean that it is notible under WP:NF Future Films? Hda3ku (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... sorry. And actually, the film is now complete and awaiting release. Having commenced principle filming is only one of the criteria under WP:NFF for unreleased films. Another is that it get some press coverage... in reliable sources independent of the film. We have been able to WP:Verify that it has filmed and is awaiting release, but production needs to get screener copies out to the reviewers so something substantial about it gets written. THAT would get it notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While we can verify that principal photography has occurred via this source, WP:NFF also requires that we get past WP:N with regards to the film itself. News articles which mention the film focus almost entirely on the actors or actresses. I've done a bit of digging at LexisNexis and at Google News and found very little about the film other than what's in the article. Unless this film garners more media coverage, I can't see a reason to keep at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, none of the sources provided by Schuym1 or Hda3ku pass WP:RS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return when WP:NF can be met. Note to closing admin: Please WP:USERFY the article back to its author, as I was able to improve it per film MOS, and that may be helpful for its eventual return. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For more sources, a quick troll of Variety yields this and this, the latter draws its information from [[1]] Also, it is important to note that the distribution of the film remains ambiguous. As it has completed principal photography, only grounds for deletion would be if the film had not secured distribution. However, if the film has not secured distribution but does so in the future, the article should be reinstated. Gta 23
- Only one of those reliable sources has significant coverage. The second paragraph of WP:NFF says that upcoming films need to have significant coverage in reliable sources also. Schuym1 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 2 February 2009 (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.