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. Sandstein 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corona (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

While this film could become notable, it currently is not. Nobody working on the film is notable nor is the production company behind it. It has yet to be pick by any company for distribution. It could easily never be released or receive an extremely small release. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Tentative keep I'm willing to incubate this if the discussion comes out as a delete, but I'm going to tentatively vote as a keep. It looks like this got global coverage when it was first announced and it has gotten a smattering of coverage since then, including an announced release date that apparently fell through. I think it should pass WP:NFF for the most part, particularly as it seemed to be a jumping off point for discussion about the appropriateness of filmmakers using the pandemic as a film plot point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I technically agree with some of your points, but for a film made by a bunch of little-knowns, it certainly has had a reasonable amount of coverage. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, or Move to Draftspace. It does have a bit of coverage, but could use more. Also, just because the developers aren't notable, the creation can still be. Exhibit A: The Worst Movie Ever!. The cast is a group of unknown actors, and made 11$ in the box office. Why is this notable? Because its, ironically, one of the worst box office hits of all time. In this case, this movie, while the cast and producers are unknown, would still be notable because of COVID-19. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It definitely can be notable without the people working on it being notable. My argument is that it's not there yet. I wouldn't be surprised if this film becomes notable, but I just don't feel that there's currently enough coverage to warrant an article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since there is direct (more than significant) coverage from reliable sources per WP:GNG. Its production was notable per WP:NFF. We have articles about unreleased films, so it is a non-issue if this film does not have reviews from reliable sources. Just make sure the article is not promotional in tone. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously meets WP:GNG, in agreement with User:Erik above. --cyclopia^speak! 18:38, 25 October 2020 (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.