Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four (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 speedy delete. Author requested deletion. Favonian (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four (film)

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

Due for release in early 2011; very limited information available, and little evidence of notability; fails WP:CRYSTALBALL GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little information. Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 17:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just opened the page and I am new to wikipedia so am, naturally, slow at collating and posting the necessary information about our film (Which is listed on imdb). My apologies if I've done things in the wrong order but If you gave me half a chance before leaping in with your size-nines I could have given all the information required. I now feel there is little point in wasting my time if all my hard work is to be deleted. This is cyber-bullying not editing. Jlang40 - new contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang42 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>Weak Keep - I have to say while the film is coming out in the distantish future, there exist sources for the film. [1] and [2] Derild 49 21 ☼ 18:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep and expand as release draws near. Or at the least, userfy to its author for continued work away from mainspace. To respectfully disagree with the nominator, WP:CRYSTAL is being inapproproiately applied, as it specifically allows that " it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below; I see little to no content in this article which actually meets this exception; the majority of the material added from sources is simply a commentary from the cast and doesn't discuss the prospects for success, as far as I can see. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, I think I've provided more than enough information and as WP:CRYSTALBALL is quite obviously being incorrectly applied, I'd like to remove the AfD notice at the top of Four (Film)'s page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang42 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notice cannot be removed until the AfD discussion is closed. WP:CRYSTALBALL is not being "obviously incorrectly applied", it is a matter of interpretation whether or not this article passes it, and I have yet to see references providing significant enough insight into the film to warrant its own article into more information is available. The article currently contains long quotes bordering on copyright violations, providing little more than a commentary, which is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. I see little content in the article meeting the quote given by MichaelQSchmidt, "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects" GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. While the director and the writer are not notable, the familiarity of the cast suggests to me that there will be additional coverage to establish its notability. In the meantime, I would recommend ensuring the article's neutrality due to the conflict of interest present. Editors may want to review John Langridge (director) and Paul Chronnell, for which there is no actual coverage of them, just the film itself. The people's articles, based on self-promotion and not any published personal background, ought to be deleted. If the film is a success and these people are covered more, then their articles can be restored. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it may be notable in the future doesn't mean that it should be kept now. Articles deleted due to WP:BALL can be freely recreated once more information is available and notability is shown to exist. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:27, 3 September 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.