Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell (2009 film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cell (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Apparently fails WP:NFF. No prejudice towards recreation when verification for commencement of shooting can be provided. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the article cites mostly blogs and what appear to be fansites, a quick Google search turns up reliable links like this and this. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a matter of notability more than verifiability - see NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read that page. It says, Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. And because I have found a couple reliable sources, I believe the article should be kept. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a database entry does not verify that shooting has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it verifies that the movie is to begin shooting, and thus it technically passes NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong - the guideline explicitly states that it must be verified to have begun shooting. This is because a very substantial percentage of shoots are cancelled or indefinitely postponed during pre-production. The guideline was created with the exact purpose of preventing every film that has ever been in development from having a stubby, unexpandable article. We are not the IMDb, MSN, or any other database, and therefore our needs and standards for inclusion are different. If you have any questions regarding this, I recommend referring the matter to the future films department. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it verifies that the movie is to begin shooting, and thus it technically passes NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a database entry does not verify that shooting has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read that page. It says, Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. And because I have found a couple reliable sources, I believe the article should be kept. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a matter of notability more than verifiability - see NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Technically this article does fail WP:NFF, it says "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles.", the two articles referenced above do not confirm shooting.--Captain-tucker (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. They're right. There's no proof that it has actually begun shooting, so it isn't a valid article and it fails WP:NFF. ~DoubleAW[c] 00:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no relavent info in the article that is not already included in Cell (novel). Upon the commencement of shooting the article should be re-created. Blackngold29 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shereth 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above NewYork483 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and the other comments above. Fails WP:NFF. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:40, 7 June 2008 (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.