Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nailin' Paylin

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 no consensus. kur ykh 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nailin' Paylin[edit]

Non-notable product. If there's a CSD category that this falls under I would have marked it that way. However, I couldn't identify one. Deadly∀ssassin 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was on Conan last night, but that doesn't make it notable yet. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If it is indeed produced by Hustler, a notable publisher, then it may come to meet the notability criteria after its publication. For now, however, as the film has not even finished shooting, and the only source is a blog, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would seem to apply. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's more than just a blog as a source. But delete for the moment anyway as we're neither a newspaper nor a crystall ball and not every bad joke which gets a a little press for a couple of days has long term notability. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystall ball and even if this is released there's no indication it will be notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That's just too many google news hits. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to the article it is in "pre-production" which means it doesn't meet the future films criteria. wikipedia is NOT a news or gossip site and we shouldn't be operating as one. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just way too many independent reliable sources about the subject that is the basis of WP:N. I look at notnews and don't think this is routine coverage of tabloid journalism. If it was just TMZ and People that was reporting on this, then sure but not when mainstream newspapers are involved. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not gossip or just blogs, this is an actual movie being made, that has many sources talking about it. To say that it should be deleted because it isn't made yet it ridiculous. Their are tons of articles about upcoming movies on this site. Also this is important, as it shows how big this election is and the people surrounding it. Palin is big in the news, and people want to hear things that have to do with her, and this will be a much viewed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Wanamaker (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think we all agree that Sarah Palin is notable. That doesn't automatically make this in-production film notable, however. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. As per Fisherqueen's statements. --Juansidious (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral this movie is lame for not picking a better lookalike for palin. I agree this movie exists and will be produced. WP:FILM suggests that an article can probably not be written before principle filming (which is scheduled to start today) and this is clearly not a WP:CRYSTAL issue. The sour; notable, if crude satirecing it pretty weak gruel, with the most august of the bunch being the new york daily news...But we really honestly do have to prepare ourselves for the eventuality that there will be an article on this subject when the film is released. So I'm on the fence. Protonk (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Crude, but notable satire.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm afraid notability is assured due to the people being parodied. The news accounts about this are only just getting started. 33 unique Google News hits in 4 days is certain significant media coverage. It's still pre-release. The commentary, reportage, over-all impact, and notability will only increase. It's being produced by HUSTLER. If this were some small indie or other non-notable company, I could argue against notability. But an effort like this on the part of HUSTLER adds greatly to its significance. "Not crystal" is not a valid deletion argument-- you don't need a crystal ball to see this one coming. Dloh cierekim 04:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the comment about Conan O'Brien. If the late news pundits have already picked it up, then it is likely to meet "household name" criteria for notability. Dloh cierekim 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this made it into a swiss newspaper. surely relevant! --Philtime (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please. Wikipedia is not news, particularly not sub-tabloid quality news about short term publicity stunts. What's more, this is a future film whose cited sources are online websites that spread porn industry gossip. Notability is nonexistent, taste is awful. RayAYang (talk) 05:04, 14 October 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.