Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shut In (2022 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 draftify to Draft:Shut In (2022 film). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shut In (2022 film)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Premature article. Doesn't pass GNG, NFILM or NFF (notability of future films). Per NFF, "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." There was nothing notable about this film's production or even post-production, therefore it is premature to have a standalone article until release, at earliest. Even after release, this film is not planned for general release in theatres or video, so it might not qualify then either. This film is slated exclusively for Daily Wire subscribers (with a later international launch). [1] [2] So far, all the sources I've found for this movie are either primary sources (by Daily Wire) or are based on press releases (not independent and therefore don't qualify towards notability). Per WP:NFSOURCES, "Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent." It already has a paragraph in The Daily Wire article, but at this point the standalone article is just [non-notable] advertising. Delete. Platonk (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Jobie James (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to re-open it back if it's deleted anyway so don't worry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:3079:B7D1:2FBC:9CCF (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What? WikiJoeB (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Might be notable once released. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I found the production notable in that the screenplay was featured on the Black List survey and the fact that controversial figure Vincent Gallo is coming out of retirement to act in the film. I think these two factors count towards the notability factor enough to keep this page. Either way, I think Gallo's involvement (as well as the film's distribution on a somewhat controversial political platform) will definitely warrant an article when the film is released. I don't think the page should be deleted but if it is deemed premature, I think it should be saved as a draft as I think it is obvious the film will garner notable attention upon its release.Brboyle (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Brboyle (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- No, fanboy notations do not make for notability in production. Notability during production means something like a new groundbreaking technique of special effects (covered in depth), or someone accidentally getting shot on set and getting news coverage for weeks. It doesn't mean some sort of 'inherited notability' because some actor gets a new job after 8 years. Platonk (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel that you are being slightly condescending to me. Fanboy notations? The Black List is an industry survey that Wikipedia has a page on and indicates favorite unproduced screenplays amongst industry professionals. It's a notable survey and its inclusion on that survey made me feel the film's production was notable. Also, Vincent Gallo isn't "some actor" he is an actor that Wikipedia deems important enough to have an extensive article on. If you think it should be deleted just let the deletion consensus play out, I was just explaining what my thought process was. I don't think Wikipedia really enforces the idea that a notable incident or groundbreaking special effects have to occur during production had to have occurred for the film to warrant an article before it comes out. Check Emergency (upcoming film). It is basically very similar in content to this page and is the reason I felt this film was notable enough for an article. The film is deemed notable in the production section not because of an on-set incident or groundbreaking special effects but because it was on the 2020 Blacklist, and its sources are based on press released either regarding the 2020 Black List or the film's production in general (which happens to be sourced from Deadline, the same source used in the Shut In article). Heck, that film doesn't even have a release date yet. By your standard shouldn't that film's page also be nominated for deletion? Brboyle (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to 'excitement' garnered pre-release and spread by fanboys all over the internet and some editors thinking that is 'coverage'; such do not make for notability. Again, I point you to WP:NOTINHERIT. Notability isn't inherited from a screenplay ever being on an industry list, nor from the film's use of an actor who was controversial enough to get blacklisted from his own industry for 8 years (necessitating an off-Hollywood non-union gig). Having a company decide it wants to break out into filmmaking and taking this up as one of their earliest projects does not inherit notability from them, either. So far you have produced three citations: 2 generated from press releases and one press release from DW. You should have created this as a draft in anticipation of later notability. So far, it doesn't have it; not just that you haven't shown it in the article. That there are other articles which have slipped through the AfC/NPP cracks though failing WP:NFF is an irrelevant argument. I'll probably nom for AfD that other article you mentioned. Platonk (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until released and reviewed. The author's points above are not totally unreasonable, but they still seem a bit borderline in my opinion. The work put in this far though can still be WP:PRESERVED until some additional coverage comes after release per WP:ATD-I. -2pou (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2021 (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.