Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shank (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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shank (film)[edit]

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

Unreleased film lacking references to support its notability. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article expansion and sourcing has begun. Film is completed, is receiving coverage, and will be released in 5 weeks. Keeping and continuing to improve the article benefits Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film is close to release and stars notable actors. Granted, it needs expansion, and that will happen as it is released and reviews are added etc... magnius (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to have significant coverage and passes WP:NFF. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This future film unambiguously fails WP:NFF" "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". There does not appear to be anything notable about the film's production. The article can be recreated later if/when it meets WP:NOTFILM. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unambiguously? Hardly. Way past "begun shooting", the film has already completed principle filming AND is slated for release in a very few weeks, deletion rather than patience does not serve the encyclopedia. WP:NF is not intended to be an exclusionary guideline when WP:GNG is being approached and WP:COMMONSENSE would indicate that the film upon release in a few weeks will receive even more coverage and not less. Not wanting to wait those few weeks is no reason to recreate what already properly serves this encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough media coverage now, so why wait to make an article? Dream Focus 22:33, 13 February 2010 (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.