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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Drake Doremus film[edit]

Untitled Drake Doremus film (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 article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics, and a small bit of initial casting announcement coverage is not enough to make it a special case yet. Just because the director has a WP:BLP does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment he announces that he's working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep completely absurd rationales. A film doesn’t need to be titled to have an article, it does need to pass WP:NFF, which it does. Seriously, this article has to be deleted because it doesn’t have a title yet? That’s a new one. Also whereas TOOSOON is an essay, meaning it’s not really enforceable, NFF is a guideline. Rusted AutoParts 23:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The core thing that is normally required for a film article is that the film has been released. The "principal photography" test only applies to a very rarefied tier of extremely high profile films on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, which get a lot more production coverage than usual, and does not automatically apply to every film just because you can single-source the fact that photography has started — even films that have started photography can still fall apart and never actually get released at all. If a film isn't getting a hyperinflated Next-Star-Wars-or-Marvel-film volume of coverage throughout the production process, then the notability test it has to pass to qualify for an article remains that the film has been (or is verifiably close to being) released. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This film has completed principal photography so it’s not falling apart now and is being sold to distributors. This is so misguided of you to think that because it’s untitled and unreleased it fails notability. It has received media coverage. Not every gets the Star Wars/Marvel treatment. Does not mean it doesn’t meet general notability guidelines in addition to NFF. Rusted AutoParts 00:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask if those who feel this isn’t warranting mainspace status yet to vote for it to be returned to draftspace. It’ll be a complete waste of time for me if all the time and work I put into assembling this article is tossed away just because it doesn’t have a title or release date yet. Rusted AutoParts 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 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.