Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Numbers? (3rd nomination)

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 to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Numbers

This is the epitome of vaporware. Perhaps it will be released one day, but probably not. In any case it has yet to receive non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications (IMDb, blogs, and school papers generally do not qualify). No objection to the article being recreated if it is ever released and becomes the subject of said coverage, but until then WP:CRYSTAL ~~WP:HAMMER~~. JBsupreme (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (implied) as nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle here. Note that the web page indicates that the article appeared on page PK - 33 of the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chronicle is a commercial daily newspaper owned by the Hearst newspaper chain. It is a reliable source. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is most certainly a reliable source, but I don't think the overall coverage rises up to scrutiny when it comes to multiple non-trivial. JBsupreme (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vaporware that hasn't been significantly addressed in third party sources. Also trout the nom for blatant misapplication of WP:HAMMER even if they retracted (hee hee). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this issue has been settled already via a vote on the proposed deletion of this article. If you want to trample on that, fine. I don't have time to ask for support from the people who previously voted to keep it. Links to previous deletion nominations for this article here1 and here2.U5K0 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too speculative at this time, the article has gone through an enormous amount of goalpost shifting based on the diffs. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability asserted (or exists yet). It may be an important documentary; it may not. At the moment, it is too premature to assert importance, nor can its notability be inherited from the subject matter, otherwise any documentary about World War 2, for instance, that is currently in post-production would be considered notable. At the moment this article is premature. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nuke crystal ballish shit. this movie is going to suck ass... [Attack removed. — Coren ^(talk)] ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage already exists.--Michig (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFF, User:U5K0, and clear consensus to keep in the 2nd AfD. The film is in prost-production and will be released shortly. The subject is obviously and clearly notable and the production is also notable. The Chronicle, Inquirer, and NYT are RS enough. — Becksguy (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (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.