Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion of the Not Quite Dead

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. LFaraone 05:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Not Quite Dead[edit]

Invasion of the Not Quite Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite having some notable names attached to the project (Wheatus, among others) there has been no in-depth coverage of this film in any reliable sources. Other than one or two mentions of being able to be an extra or some insanely brief mentions in various sources that can't be used to show notability, there's nothing out there for this film to show that it merits an article. This just isn't notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Google News archives provided minor mentions, but one of the results, this walesonline.co.uk article from 2009 cited October 2010 as the release date, and yet, that was two years ago. I understand funding and filming a film takes money and time but I would have expected a release date, especially considering the years of hard work. Simultaneously, I went to Google News UK but found nothing different and Google Books provided nothing useful. I also found this blog which provides details but this would be insufficient and never mentions a release date. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to say that I'm very open to the idea of incubating or userfying this. Hopefully it'll get completed and released, as it sounds like it could be quite interesting.Tokyogirl79 (talk)
Leave - now (in 2012) we have a teaser so this project seems not dead (IMDb) and may be will be released soon. Just awaiting for a little. --Vanquisher 00:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanquisher.UA (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is no in-depth coverage in any independent or reliable sources to show that it is going to pass WP:NFILM anytime soon, let alone the more strict WP:NFF. I have no problem if you want to userfy the content to your personal userspace, but we can't keep an article around based upon the justification that it should release this year and might get coverage. It's been in limbo for years now and hasn't received substantial coverage or a release date, so it's also just as likely that it will continue to fly under the radar when it comes to reliable sources and coverage. Saying that it absolutely will and that it should remain just because it "will be released soon" goes against WP:CRYSTAL. I have no problem with you userfying, but we can't keep an article just because it might release soon. Besides, I also see where trailers for the film seem to have released in 2010 with the promise of a 2011 release date... and nothing happened. Similar story in 2011 where a trailer was released but nothing happened. When you consider that this has been going on for years, the promise of a teaser isn't really much promise at all. Besides, just having a guaranteed release at all still doesn't guarantee notability. There are a lot of films, especially indie ones, that release and never gain enough notability to warrant an article. At this point the article doesn't even come close to passing notability guidelines and with the way some of it is/was written, it's pretty much just an exercise in back patting and self-promotion. If you're the director or anyone involved in the film, I'd highly recommend that if you do userfy it, that you get someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to assist you in keeping the promotional speak out of the article and to help avoid any potential WP:COI.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's been in limbo for years now and hasn't received substantial coverage or a release date [...] it comes to reliable sources and coverage.. Release date is announced. Next from official site: "Shooting Has Begun, Every £/$ Counts". In 2011, the pre-credits, stand alone intro sequence was shot for `Invasion', and from December 2012, we will begin shooting the main bulk of the movie, with all make up, fx & prosthetic scenes aimed for March 2013, we will be working towards having a completed movie by Halloween 2013. For next one: There are a lot of films, especially indie ones, that release and never gain enough notability to warrant an article. Agreed. Yes, that project is indie film and still in production (4 years). The project is not abandoned, activity detected on official facebook, official director's tweater. Compare this project with Dead Roses which seems to be abandoned from 2007 but still have wiki-page. For last one: If you're the director or anyone involved in the film [...]. I'm none of the above. --Vanquisher 10:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanquisher.UA (talk • contribs)
  • Well, first off, primary sources (anything released by anyone involved with the film in any way, shape, or form) cannot show notability and facebook isn't usable as a source at all. As far as whether or not there is activity being done on those pages, it actually doesn't count towards notability either. You could have an indie film that religiously records each day's activities, but that activity wouldn't really matter because what shows notability is coverage in independent and reliable sources- which this movie lacks. The official sites could announce that they're going to show this film tomorrow and that still wouldn't matter because all that proves is that the movie was shown and that it exists. Existing is not notability, nor is having a film shown anywhere. As far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, all that means is that means is that the other article (in this case Dead Roses) has not been listed for deletion yet. If you want, you can even nominate it yourself. The reason that the lack of any solid release date is being consistently mentioned here is because the film has consistently been pushed back release-wise for years now and that paired with the complete lack of interest by any reliable sources that would otherwise cover indie films or films in general, is a good indication of non-notability in the present and a fairly good indication that the film is likely to remain as such for the forseeable future. A lot of RS are leery about reporting about films that don't have set release dates and are continually in limbo. Having a release date might help it get coverage, but until/if coverage in RS actually appears we have no reason to keep the article. It all boils down to in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the article, which we don't have.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Found something interesting: announce stage or about first communications (2006-2007) article 1, article 2, article 3, archived IMDb page 1, article 4, article 5, article 5 and initial wiki-page about subject. Pre-production stage or about "pre-production" (2007-2012) article I, archived IMDb page I, article II, article III, article IV and article V. Filming stage (2011-2012) teaser and official site (retrieved November 2, 2012) (re-cited): "Shooting Has Begun, Every £/$ Counts". In 2011, the pre-credits, stand alone intro sequence was shot for Invasion, and from December 2012, we will begin shooting the main bulk of the movie, with all make up, fx & prosthetic scenes aimed for March 2013, we will be working towards having a completed movie by Halloween 2013. Now I know one thing: "This project is really creeping". Decide with a good conscience. Vanquisher 14:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanquisher.UA (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. This has not been 'in limbo' for years, the project and film are very much in the forefront, the directors have been interviewed by relevant industry sources including SciFi Now [1] and the project was even mentioned by NME because of MC Frontalot's involvement [2]. Expecting a 100% crowdfunded film to be able to hit the same schedules as a standard hollywood film is, frankly, naive. Jonn blanchard (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have now added more recent link to the external links section. These show the project is far from dead and as an indie film getting that much attention also proves that it is very much notable enough. Jonn blanchard (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
  1. ^ http://www.scifinow.co.uk/blog/invasion-of-the-not-quite-dead-director-interview/
  2. ^ http://www.nme.com/nme-video/youtube/id/blzSzD4JTnQ/search/wheatus
  • The first link is good, but the second one for NME wouldn't be because it's not really an article or anything in-depth about the movie. It also looks like the sort of thing that is uploaded by someone involved with the film or its production/promotion, so it wouldn't be usable as something that would show notability for the film. Remember, this would fall under WP:NFF, so it would need a lot of coverage to show that it's notable since it's a film that has not yet released and has not been completed. Here's the big issues I had with the sources and links on the article:
  1. [1] This is a press release. It doesn't matter where they are printed, press releases never show notability.
  2. [2] Search my Trash isn't a site that would show notability here on Wikipedia.
  3. [3] This is a relatively new online magazine and it isn't really something that has proven itself as a reliable source yet.
  4. [4] This one is good and would actually count as a RS. However we need more than just one link to show notability for an as of yet unreleased and unfinished film.
  5. [5] This is pretty much a non-notable blog. Blogs almost never show notability except in rare circumstances and this isn't the case here.
  6. [6] This is another non-notable blog, which cannot be used to show notability.
Other than that, everything else is a primary source or is something that would otherwise not show notability. So far the only usable source is the SciFi Now article and we need more than one article to show notability for an unreleased film.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, even if it's an indie film it still has to follow the same rules that every other film does. I know it's harder for indie and niche films to get the coverage that a big Hollywood blockbuster would and that sometimes the rules seem unfairly skewed towards the more mainstream stuff, but we can't bend the rules just to keep one movie and then expect to hold those same standards to a number of other indie films. We have to treat all of the films the same and the bottom line is that this film hasn't received enough coverage at this point in time to pass WP:NFF. If you want to userfy this and work on it until it's reached that point, then that's fine. I have no problem with that. But until that point in time it shouldn't be kept on here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invasion_of_the_Not_Quite_Dead&oldid=1076172976"