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, all votes (aside from one changed delete) suggest keep. (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Willy[edit]

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

Contested prod. ~~A newsfeed announcing the premiere of an upcoming film does not establish notability at all. It's simply WP:TOOSOON for this article.~~ De728631 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~Coverage in reliable sources is very sparse and superficial. There is no evidence that this film will ever be notable. Fails WP:NFILM.~~ Passes WP:GNG based on newly-found sources. - Mr X 18:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I worked on finding sources - I only added one but there are others. Obviously the Dominican Republic does not have a huge film industry, but I don't see why it would fail based on an upcoming film. As far as I can tell, it's pretty much the equivalent coverage as many upcoming English films. The director, producers, actors etc all have profiles, so have some notability. Someone at WP:PNT also felt it was worth saving and put in effort to translate it to English. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Just because the key people involved in making the film have articles doesn't mean that their film is notable even before the premiere. If there are other sources though that already demonstrate in-depth coverage in the DomRep or elsewhere, please free to add them. De728631 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google reveals that there's already sufficient coverage of this soon-to-be-released film in reliable sources to establish notability, for example [1][2][3][4], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa I see Arxiloxos got the password to the Google too! Remember, only we can be trusted with that kind of power. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with thanks to Arxiloxos and Мандичка as a completed film receiving coverage meets the criteria for inclusion set at WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Update: I have just addressed issues and added those cites per MOS:FILM. Meeting WP:NF is established. Thanks all. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many have done a great job of improving this article. WP:NFF states: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines" [emphasis added]. However, additions since the nomination (including reliable citations seem to demonstrate that the general notability guidelines have been met. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Thank you for adding all the additional sources. I have to agree with JoeSperazza that in its current state the article does meet the general notability criteria. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2015 (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.