Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hit (2016)

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. MBisanz ^talk 10:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit (2016)[edit]

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

Premature. The film might become notable once it is released but currently it does not meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. (Note that the proposed deletion templates were removed twice.) Pichpich (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON especially considering that it's a smaller movie. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found two sources, both of which look to be small articles written in a local newspaper. Local sources tend to be depreciated on here since it's easier for a local person to gain coverage, however even if this wasn't the case these sources still wouldn't show the in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:NFF. I did clean the article up to remove the promotional puffery and on a side note, I've also blocked the article creator as a promotional username, since it's the same as the company producing the movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

zeroing in:

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

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

working title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)[1]

Keep. "Smaller movie" is not a negative criteria for film and WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a criteria for sources. As a stub article which can grow overtime and through regular editing, we're fine with what is now sourcing the improved article as per guideline they address the topic directly and in detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article looked like this when I voted. Those are all IMDB links. I could find no sources, mostly likely due to its name. There were sources added afterwards. Because it didn't seem to be a very notable film in the WP:PRAGMATIC sense as in it's a "smaller movie", I didn't scavenge the internet for sources to rescue this article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mr. Magoo: I fully understand that it looked quite poor when brought to AFD, and the common name did cause difficulties, but I chose to practice my own due diligence and look toward possibilities when something simply needs work. No harm. No foul. If it were not improvable, I would have gladly opted for deletion. Heck, many of these 686 looked as bad or worse. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the look that was the problem but the dearth of any coverage. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per MichaelQSchmidt. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from material obviously written by the film's producers (which isn't independent of them) and IMDB the only sources are two articles in the same local newspaper. This is problematic for a number of reasons: the news organisation probably isn't terribly reliable, the articles mostly consist of quotes from people involved in the production of the film, and we generally require multiple sources from different people/organisations to demonstrate significant coverage per WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find more impressive sources and there's no indication that any of the other WP:NFILM criteria are met. I would advise waiting until the film is released - if it gets enough reviews then we could certainly have an article on it then. Hut 8.5 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation later. According to WP:NFILM, "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." The film will probably receive better and more general sourcing after it is released, and at that time the article can be restored and expanded. It could be userfied now if anyone volunteers to take it on. I looked for a redirect but could not find any likely target; apparently none of the people associated with this film have articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2016 (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.