Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smiley (2012 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 Incubate. v/r - T P 23:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley (2012 film)[edit]

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

There's a complete lack of reliable sources about this on the internet and the article itself only has two sources, both of which are brief blurbs about the trailer. I've tried to find sources but other than a small flurry of activity centering around the movie's trailer, there's no concrete release date and no other information about the movie. Article was DE-PRODed with the claim that once the movie comes out, it'll be big, which is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Nominating for deletion because while I do think the movie will be big once it comes out, there's no release date and the film does not pass WP:NFF in the here and now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After posting this there were two more sources added to the article, one of which was a link that was already on the page, so I changed it to a repeated citation tag. The current links on the site are as follows:

An IMDb link. This cannot show notability in any form and at most, is a trivial link.
An article about the trailer. It's incredibly brief, mostly recycling the same content that was posted in link number 3.
Another article by Dread Central. Another incredibly brief article that states the same stuff that was posted in link 2.
This is a BD article about the trailer. Like the others it is only the briefest of articles about the trailer and is not really what is needed to show that this passes WP:NFF.

So far there's no indepth coverage of this film and in order to show that a future film has notability it must have a lot of coverage, which this film lacks. Trust me, I did try to look for sources before nominating this and there's juts nothing out there. While I believe it might be big, there's no guarantee that it will be.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Timing of release is currently vague, but filming has been completed and promotion is in full swing for the eventual release. Sourced good enough for an upcoming release, and more sourcing will come undoubtedly. Nate • (chatter) 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep articles because they may or may not get notability later on down the line. The coverage so far is pretty thin, mostly comprising of brief articles about the trailer that seem to be mostly comprised of press release information. There's no in-depth coverage and unreleased films must have a lot of coverage to really qualify for an article before being released. Even if we were to go by WP:NFILM the lack of in-depth coverage would end up causing it to be sent to AfD.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One source suggests it's going to be video-on-demand not cinema release.[1] Director Michael J. Gallagher doesn't have a WP article (not to be confused with bishop Michael James Gallagher), and has never directed a feature film; his previous work, the tv show Totally Sketch, isn't on WP either. The lead actors aren't well-known either. So it's not certain the film will get significant press coverage or a big release. It seems marginal to me whether to delete (obviously not prejudicing re-creation after release). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no problem with it being userfied or incubated, but so far the only reliable sources for the film are insanely brief articles that all state the same thing: that there was a trailer released and that it'll come out sometime this year. Some of them seem like they were more taken from a press release than written on their own, as the two links to Dread Central say almost exactly the same thing about the movie with only the first paragraph being slightly different. The Bloody Disgusting page is almost identical, with the last sentence about the film's availability being the same as the other articles. I just think that an article for this is premature since the only reliable coverage of the film is a handful of brief articles about the trailer release. There's no other coverage of the film such as talking about the actors being signed or the production being underway, and none of the present articles are really in-depth about the movie. Since we can't guarantee that this will end up getting a lot of coverage since the current coverage for a movie that's finished filming is pretty scant, I think it's just too soon to say that it absolutely will get noticed. I think that we'll probably have to wait for it to get released and see if anyone reviews it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment Actually, Totally Sketch is a YouTube channel that has surprised 800,000 YouTube subscribers to date, and one of lead actors, Shane Dawson is the 6th most subscribed person on YouTube, internationally, with nearly 3 million subscribers. Gallagher has stated on Twitter that he is in the process of finalizing the release date, so that will likely be confirmed within the coming months. Shooting has completed and promotion is currently taking place, and of course, the information used is all backed up by reliable references, so I think that the article should stay. Keep.Navystardust12 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2012 (EST)navystardust12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.97.90 (talk)
Comment Notability is not inherited by anyone that stars in or directs the film. Dawson might be notable, but his being notable does not guarantee notability for this film. WP:NOTINHERITED The other issue is that there's nothing here to show notability right now in this place in time. All of your arguments are based around the idea that the film will eventually become notable and that the promotion will eventually catch the eye of enough sites to get more than an article that's 99% a reproduction of a press release. As far as Total Sketch goes, I don't see where that was ever used as a source. If you're remarking that the channel is run by someone who is involved in the film, then WP:NOTINHERITED works here as well because not every project by a notable person or group is automatically notable. To qualify for WP:NFF you have to have a lot of coverage and the only reliable coverage we have here are a handful of articles that mostly reproduce 2-3 paragraphs from a press release and show a trailer. To be honest, I feel that a lot of the arguments here stem from WP:ILIKEIT and not because the film actually passes any guidelines. I like the trailer for the film too, which is why I kept from nominating it for so long, but this just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Saying that this film will become notable or that the promotion will get it more visibility is just WP:CRYSTAL. Here's one of the qualifications of 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. There has been ZERO coverage of this film apart from a few articles about the trailer, which again- is mostly relisting of information from the press release. This just doesn't pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or incubate. Unreleased film. Not notable, but could be soon, so userfy till it gets a release. Tigerboy1966 01:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate We DO have enough reliable genre sources speaking about this upcoming film,[2] to consider placing it in the incubator for a short while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:26, 12 March 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.