Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parker (2013 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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parker (2013 film)[edit]

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

There's nothing yet notable about this film. It's months away from release, and all that's out about the film is a poster and a 30 second sneak peak. Too soon for an article. Zac 02:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if a sneak peek, and a poster has been released, then it's more or less a confirmed thing. Plus sufficient sourcability, this passes WP:GNG and thus passes WP:NFF, Parker. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's an official trailer out, with a vague release date mentioned, so it's a objectively existing thing, starring notable actors. Secondary source coverage of the trailer is out there at least. Three weeks ago I would have suggested Delete for this AfD, but now it's passed a notability milestone or two. -Markeer 19:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Filming has started (and completed), and there is already substantial press coverage, so it meets WP:NFF. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A strict reading of WP:CRYSTAL might argue against this, but it's virtually impossible that a movie with a released trailer and with filming complete won't meet inclusion standards once the release date rolls around. Even if it were shelved, that would attract third-party coverage. These sorts of "virtually inevitable" articles are on something of a gray line, but in my opinion, we don't benefit from a strictly bureaucratic delete-and-recreate process -- as opposed to the truly crystal-gazing articles for films and albums which haven't even started filming, and often lack even bare essentials like cast and title. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. It appears as if the film is indeed notable enough for inclusion. I didn't realize that film notability was as loosey goosey as it is. It appears as if WP:NFF prevails over WP:CRYSTAL in this situation. Zac 20:11, 8 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.