Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addiction (short film)

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 incubate. More than one editor, so incubating instead of userfying. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction (short film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM - an unreleased movie, the press coverage provided is merely an announcement that it will be shown for one weekend in one theater, which counts as trivial. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uesrfy back to its author (or incubate for collaborative improvements). If the thing gets the requisite coverage after its June 28 release, then a return to article space would be appropriate. So far I found Haiti Press Network (French) Le Nouvelliste (French) and Minkoze Which quite nice for a short Haitian film, but would appear not enough for an unreleased film to meet WP:NFF. Right now it is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Minkoze piece is a PR piece (check the author name), and this does not count toward notability. -Nat Gertler (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way arguing that this is notable enough, and simply shared what little I could find.. including that press release (which offered clues to what could be more appropriate searches). If there was more, we'd be at a different place. But yes, this does not belong in article space at this time...and is at best simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this needs to be removed from the mainspace. I have no objection to userfication or incubation per MichaelQSchmidt.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 27 April 2013 (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.