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.
Merge for the time being. A wrapped production based on a notable book with a notable director and a notable cast; no release date, though. Deletion would not be appropriate: instead, content from this article should be incorporated as a section of
the book article until such time (if ever) as the film becomes notable on its own. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
05:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The film will be released this fall. I have already seen rough cuts of it. Deleting makes no sense at all, and people who want to remove valuable information that could benefit others make absolutely no sense. I do understand the idea of merging, but am fearful that this would not provide all the necessary information to those seeking it. There is already an OFFICIAL WEBSITE for this highly anticipated upcoming film (
http://90minutesinheaventhemovie.com/) and still there is talk it's too soon?? Puh-leeeez.
Donmike10 (
talk)
16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Response@
Walter Görlitz: yes, this is not about us... and while I know you've been around for eleven years, and I accept that in some eyes I am merely a dumb-ol'-seven-years-long editor, who is somehow also an
administrator, and a
coordinator of
Project film, I do wish to thank you for your kind suggestion above,
but I am no ignorant
noob and I do understand...
WP:GNG telling us "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article",
WP:RS telling us "an article should be based on reliable,
third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy",
the inclusion criteria of
WP:NF telling us to look for multiple reliable sources, and
I have
addressed some article issues. And while we have no mandate that sources have to be solely about a topic being sourced,
enough available are and do offer substantial and direct information about the filming or completion of this film. In my understanding the cautions of
WP:NFF telling us to at least wait for a film to begin, and with this one completed and receiving coverage, this production per our community standards meets GNG and thus merits inclusion per
WP:NFF (paragraph 3). And thanks, but as the author of
WP:TOOSOON, I do have decent sense of when something is premature or not, and when guideline is met or not. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q.09:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Sorry
MichaelQSchmidt, it's too soon as there no GNG. Paragraph 3 may be met, but can you show it in reliable sources? I checked the longs you provided and the answer is no, unless I'm wrong about sites like big-trailers.com and www.2015auditions.com not meeting RS.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- per prior comments. It has already generated sufficient coverage in reliable news sources, even outside of Christian-focused sources. --
EPadmirateur (
talk)
01:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If that was your goal, why not then take care of it yourself and add whatever information you deem necessary? Is deleting an article in any instance better than adding info, which could then, in turn, help people with access to information? I can think of no example in which it would be. If you want to make this all about me, go right ahead. I just will never understand why anyone would want to remove information that could possibly help people.
Donmike10 (
talk)
16:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
MichaelQSchmidt: - Much appreciated. I wish more people on here thought like you. I'm actually not remotely personally interested in this film over any other, and have no actual desire to even see this film; I just am for this site being something to provide information, most especially to the outside world. I'll remove myself completely from this discussion from here on out.
Donmike10 (
talk)
21:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Current ver of article shows that there are several notable cast members, principal photography has begun and even completed. There are reviews linked above and it seems fairly likely that it will have a wide release.
NFF Paragraph 3 appears to pass as stated above, so I'm seeing no issue. I'm almost leaning towards Draft until release per
WP:NFF paragraph 3, but if we assume that the production itself is notable per the reasons above, I'm okay with keep. ―Padenton|
✉18:16, 25 May 2015 (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.
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.
Merge for the time being. A wrapped production based on a notable book with a notable director and a notable cast; no release date, though. Deletion would not be appropriate: instead, content from this article should be incorporated as a section of
the book article until such time (if ever) as the film becomes notable on its own. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
05:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The film will be released this fall. I have already seen rough cuts of it. Deleting makes no sense at all, and people who want to remove valuable information that could benefit others make absolutely no sense. I do understand the idea of merging, but am fearful that this would not provide all the necessary information to those seeking it. There is already an OFFICIAL WEBSITE for this highly anticipated upcoming film (
http://90minutesinheaventhemovie.com/) and still there is talk it's too soon?? Puh-leeeez.
Donmike10 (
talk)
16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Response@
Walter Görlitz: yes, this is not about us... and while I know you've been around for eleven years, and I accept that in some eyes I am merely a dumb-ol'-seven-years-long editor, who is somehow also an
administrator, and a
coordinator of
Project film, I do wish to thank you for your kind suggestion above,
but I am no ignorant
noob and I do understand...
WP:GNG telling us "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article",
WP:RS telling us "an article should be based on reliable,
third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy",
the inclusion criteria of
WP:NF telling us to look for multiple reliable sources, and
I have
addressed some article issues. And while we have no mandate that sources have to be solely about a topic being sourced,
enough available are and do offer substantial and direct information about the filming or completion of this film. In my understanding the cautions of
WP:NFF telling us to at least wait for a film to begin, and with this one completed and receiving coverage, this production per our community standards meets GNG and thus merits inclusion per
WP:NFF (paragraph 3). And thanks, but as the author of
WP:TOOSOON, I do have decent sense of when something is premature or not, and when guideline is met or not. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q.09:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Sorry
MichaelQSchmidt, it's too soon as there no GNG. Paragraph 3 may be met, but can you show it in reliable sources? I checked the longs you provided and the answer is no, unless I'm wrong about sites like big-trailers.com and www.2015auditions.com not meeting RS.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- per prior comments. It has already generated sufficient coverage in reliable news sources, even outside of Christian-focused sources. --
EPadmirateur (
talk)
01:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If that was your goal, why not then take care of it yourself and add whatever information you deem necessary? Is deleting an article in any instance better than adding info, which could then, in turn, help people with access to information? I can think of no example in which it would be. If you want to make this all about me, go right ahead. I just will never understand why anyone would want to remove information that could possibly help people.
Donmike10 (
talk)
16:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
MichaelQSchmidt: - Much appreciated. I wish more people on here thought like you. I'm actually not remotely personally interested in this film over any other, and have no actual desire to even see this film; I just am for this site being something to provide information, most especially to the outside world. I'll remove myself completely from this discussion from here on out.
Donmike10 (
talk)
21:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Current ver of article shows that there are several notable cast members, principal photography has begun and even completed. There are reviews linked above and it seems fairly likely that it will have a wide release.
NFF Paragraph 3 appears to pass as stated above, so I'm seeing no issue. I'm almost leaning towards Draft until release per
WP:NFF paragraph 3, but if we assume that the production itself is notable per the reasons above, I'm okay with keep. ―Padenton|
✉18:16, 25 May 2015 (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.