Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perkins' 14

Perkins' 14

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The result was Nom withdrawn, article has been changed significantly. (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still in "production", everyone involved is a redlink, only source is an IMDB profile that is almost word-for-word this article. Fails general notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I'd still like to see some better sources, and "it will probably be more notable later" is not the best reason to keep, but the recent improvements seem to get it past notability guidelines. Good work, Nomination withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ~~Delete~~ ~~without prejudice and return when~~ WP:NF ~~can,~~ HAS beeen satisfied. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral as a future film but with an unusual angle (Internet development) that has received some but not much news attention. JJL (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Principle filming has finished. See with [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those that comes close to being a reliable source is Variety, and that's just a short blurb. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Fearmag is considered RS for its field. I would not go to them for an article on Global Warming... just as I would not go to the Washington Post on information on a horror film. When sourcing, one needs to go the the experts in the respective fields. However... I am only getting into the expansion and futher sourcing. Do not judge it too early.... Still under major revamping... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have done what I could in the last 90 minutes or so. Any further suggestions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate input, either here or the article's talk page, about expanding the role the online intenet development that began the production of this film... the story concept contest... the actor's video auditions... the viewer input... the selection processes... the financing... etc. Or might that much information be best in a separate article about this process, rather than a subheading in this article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of the After Dark Horrorfest, which tend to be sizable hits on DVD, including last year's Dark Ride by the same director. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what is meant by "which tend to be sizable hits on DVD"? Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this New York Times article, the first batch brought in $10 million between their release and when the article was written (June 07). The films were also more widely reviewed and generally got more attention (i.e. Wal-Mart prominently displays them) than they would have as individual releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 01:58, 10 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.