Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master and Victim

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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Master and Victim[edit]

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

PROD was removed by another editor, my rationale was: "Does not meet WP:NF, written like an essay and an advertisement" Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the PROD tag because I think there's a decent chance that someone could make a case to keep. For now, I'm neutral. Go Phightins! 01:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - agree with Phightins that someone might be able to make a case for Keep but at the moment the only sources are from the production company itself and from a single magazine article. Would be inclined to think this is a combination of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL and that it could probably justify an article in the future (once it is released and has been reviewed in reliable sources). Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Lions Gate Entertainment are a production company. Have they had anything to do with producing this film? If so, the reference that cites their magazine could obviously not be considered independent. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official website for the film says, "Master and Victim is an independant British Horror Film that started production in 2010. Having already been featured in Lions Gate's "Fright Club" magazine, the film is already getting quite a reputation." That implies that it is not affiliated with Lionsgate, I think. Go Phightins! 01:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my first inclination too, but I query why an uninvolved production company would promo another production company's unreleased movie... Maybe that's just what they do. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, weak delete Pending any new information, I will tentatively vote delete. Go Phightins! 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Google News US and UK provided zero relevant results aside from one listing here at Leila Reid's website, an actress from the film. The film is not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the plot was copied and pasted directly from http://www.masterandvictim.co.uk/home.html. I have blanked the copyrighted content. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I am reading this right now, I have it that the film has not been released yet. According to WP:NFF:

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.

—WP:NFF

It is simply too soon for this article to be considered. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, weak delete i would like to say keep if the article can add some sources. if it makes it out of post production it will likely later be worthy, if coverage is done during the production like most movies and is sourced i'd change my mind, i do believe with a little work it could be kept and later can be built upon by other editors WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 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.