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. Sandstein 09:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON article about a still-unreleased film. As always, films are not automatically deemed notable under WP:NFILM just because one or two sources attest that their production is underway -- with rare exceptions for meganotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise that get a lot of coverage throughout the process, the notability test for most films is that they have been released and started to garner attention from film critics. This still hasn't passed that test, however: even its own self-published website still says that it is "currently being viewed by various film industry professionals to determine the best path for distribution", with no firm release date confirmed at all. But most of the references here are about the lawsuit that the film is profiling, not about the film as a film -- and while there are also a few sources about the film as a film, there aren't enough of those to earn it the Star Wars treatment. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film actually premieres and gets critical attention, but there's no evidence that this film has received enough coverage yet to already be deemed a special case over and above most other unreleased films. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~{talk} 00:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it cannot truly be assessed to anything until the film is released.White Siddiqah (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't count the refs from the article too. Agreed that most of the refs in the current version's last section are irrelevant to this topic's notability (and can likely be removed). This film has generated TV appearances and responses even prior to its release, which would be the noteworthy element in this case. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 03:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting the GNG, although I admit I'd be happier if those 2015 stories were more recent. Still documentaries often are slow in the making, especially if the story has not fully played out. I speculate here that they may be waiting to see how the lawsuit plays out. None of this, of course, has any bearing on whether the guideline is met. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 06:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While there is coverage, it's either announcements that the film is going to be made, or one dated just before the crowdfunding campaign started. If it never got finished/released, would it be considered worthy of an encyclopedia article solely because of this coverage? I doubt it. Maybe a brief summary in the Yelp article (it's already mentioned there) would suffice until there's more of a basis for an article. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2019 (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.