Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead for a Dollar

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. Consensus reached is that the article passes WP:NFF. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead for a Dollar

[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)

Film does not meet WP:NFF. There is evidence that production has begun, but the production has not been notable. The film has received mundane coverage (cast/crew announcements) but nothing beyond this. This should be in draft space until notability guidelines at WP:NF are met. BOVINEBOY2008 02:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – How is a Walter Hill-directed Western starring Christoph Waltz, Willem Dafoe, and Rachel Brosnahan not notable? While filming has indeed been confirmed by large publications (the Albuquerque Journal), these A-list castings alone should make it pass WP:NFF. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Who is attached to the film does not determine its notability. BOVINEBOY2008 22:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace Certainly seems notable, but we don't have a release date, studio or platform of where it's going. Until then, it should remain either in the original editor's sandbox or in draftspace. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quiver Distribution has confirmed it will theatrically release the film. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still needs to be dated, and it can always go to a streamer instead for the right price/contract terms (or as seen with past collabs, pushed to Redbox and their streaming service). Until then, the article should stay in draftspace. Nate • (chatter) 02:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel it holds the necessary components for a healthy stub article. It’s begun filming so it’s not jumping the premature gun and has decent enough production citation. I would note that the information about this being Waltz and Hills returns to the genre is largely superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 03:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles(...)Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." In this case, the reliable Albuquerque Journal article confirmed that filming for this movie has begun in Santa Fe, New Mexico and the article was published after filming begun. WP:NFF also states, "Additionally, 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." Thanks to the Albuquerque Journal article, the production is notable. Why would a newspaper publish an article about a film in production starring such notable actors as two time Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz and four time Oscar-nominee Willem Dafoe? Because it's notable. The Film Creator (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GNG, we need the coverage to be significant. The Albequerque article is mostly a reprint of the material in the trade announcements, plus a few comments about how it is being filmed locally and employing local cast and crew members. IMV, it is largely a fluff piece. There were no quotes taken from the production team in the creation of the article, no critique of the production, I don't believe it constitutes as significant coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 19:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well sourced in both industry websites, and regional ones. Furthermore, we have sufficient detail on the film for it to built upon. Finally, principal photography has begun. This all leads me to the conclusion that the article passes NFF, and that the article should remain. JustaFilmFan (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFF.4meter4 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 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.