Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The British Guide to Showing Off

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. WP:DANNO The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British Guide to Showing Off[edit]

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

Delete — Unreferenced article about a yet to be screened film. First of all, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (also see here) and secondly, I doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. Note that even though the film has been contributed to by some notable people; notability cannot be inherited. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Fly by Night (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not think I am going to far out on a limb here to suggest that as the film is completed, will release on November 11, and has already been covered in Screen Daily and Variety we have a meeting of WP:NFF and can let this one remain and grow normaly through regular editing. And toward the nominator's concern of the current version lacking available sources, notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation within an article. BUT, I'll be glad to go over and add some to perhaps encourage a decision to withdraw this nomination. Mostly though, I am quite concerned that this brand new article was sent to AFD only 4 minutes after being created and while being actively edited by its author,[1] when doing a bit of reasearch and then tagging for concerns is the preferred response to new articles Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim with any level of certainty that the article was being "actively edited by its author"? The article had not been touched for several minutes. It's more likely that my WP:AfD nomination prompted the editor to make further changes. I wouldn't say that adding two external links in 10 minutes qualifies as being "actively edited by its author". — Fly by Night (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4 minutes after its creation, you sent it to AFD. Was it your assumption that being untouched for 4 minutes meant it was being abandoned by the author? And while certainly the threat of deletion might have pushed the author, a template could have done the exact same thing and IS the preferred alternative to outright deletion.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is what any concerned editor could have done in less than 30 minutes through regular editing. This AFD was realy unneccessary and I would ask you please to consider a withdrawal, specially as a little research as was done by User:Arxiloxos, would show that the film has screened and has indeed received coverage. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, are you accusing this of being a fly-by-night nomination? :-) --GRuban (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already reviewed by Variety[2] and Screen Daily[3], and exhibited at multiple film festivals where it has been the subject of coverage in, e.g., The Province[4] and the Jerusalem Post[5].--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good work done by Arxilos and MichaelQSchmidt. --GRuban (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MichaelQSchmidt is right. What happened here is not the right way to treat an article creator while in the middle of creating an article. Plus Arxiloxos's references are sufficient. PolicarpioM (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2011 (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.