Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Land (upcoming film)

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 Draftify. It is now located at Draft:Candy Land (upcoming film), at which the article can continue to be worked on until it meets WP:NFILM. Anarchyte (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Land (upcoming film)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable upcoming film, only coverage is about a single casting announcement, does not have significant coverage beyond that, per WP:NFF, should be moved to draft until topic receives more coverage BOVINEBOY2008 19:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon in the development phase to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFF, nothing found to pass GNG. Per NFF, "... 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."Kolma8 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:NFF also states that artices must state that principal photography has begun, which the article does. Regardless, I understand WP:GNG concerns. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFF does not state that if the film has begun principal photography, then it deserves an article. It is simply a prerequisite. BOVINEBOY2008 20:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of this, which is why I still express this position while still being a little skeptical. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that Variety Insight is not the same as Variety, and it does not meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:NFSOURCES. Even if using a low bar of WP:100Words, Variety Insight provides zero words of real prose reporting. It is a database for trade folks—independent and presumably reliable, but not significant. A valuable reference tool, though, for sure. -2pou (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: In my view, NFF is not met since the production is not notable (no reporting on it), and the sourcing that pretty much says it exists does not fully meet WP:NFSOURCES. It can incubate in draft space until there is a release and some reviews, though, instead of deletion. -2pou (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, currently fails WP:NFF but may be notable in the future. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2021 (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.