Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Chance (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 keep. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Chance (film)

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

Per WP:NFILMS this is not yet notable as it has not received extensive coverage from third-party reliable sources. Redirected page to parent production company Syco but was reverted as were attempts to tag the page using {{notability}}. Generally my understanding that pages should not be created in anticipation of notability, but rather if/when the becom7e notable. An unsourced cast-list with one sentence on a premier and one sentence regarding the soundtrack is not notable per WP:GNG. It should be worked on in a sandbox or at a later stage when more information is available. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC?

Keep Clearly this novice user has never read WP:BEFORE. This film will premiere in 7 days at one of the most notable film festivals. A quick Google search of the film title and either the director or "star" show dozens and dozens of results, easily meeting WP:N. I've tried discussing this with this newbie, but they revert my edits on their talkpage. I don't understand the rationale for redirecting to Syco, whatever that is. Why not the director's page? Infact, no real rationale for redirecting has been presented without discussion on the article's talkpage. I've gone to the effort of spending a few minutes of using Google, finding references and expanding the article. It's not that hard to do. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment you have never tried to discuss the article with me you simply told me you didnt care that id pointed you to WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS, you simply posted a disruption warning with no explanation. When I asked you to clarify why the article was notable (pointing to WP:BURDEN) you ignored, removed the notability tag and told me to go to AfD. Its evident that you enjoy the drama, you've goaded my by using terms like "novice" and "obviously". If you knew the article could be made more notable, then when you reverted my redirect, why didnt you expand the article? I could have probably handled this better but certainly I think we're supoosed to focus on the edits and not the editor. Maybe this AfD is a bad idea but certainly the response above is not in good spirit or faith. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you looked at an article that's only existed for a short while and thought "I know, this HAS to be redirected!". No discussion, no rationale, nothing. I'll correct you (again). I didn't say "didn't care" but that I didn't care about how long you've been editing here. It's not relevant. And when have I said "obviously" too? I haven't. You made no attempt to source the article before bringing it here. Have a read of WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the film has not been released has no bearing on its notability. There are lots of reliable sources covering it ([1] [2] [3]) and they will no doubt increase when it is screened. Plus, it has finished production, so it can't be deleted under that, either. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough references to easily pass WP:GNG OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

SNOW KEEP. This nomination makes it appear that among other policies and guidelines, the nominator may not fully understand WP:N, WP:NF, WP:BEFORE, WP:NRVE, WP:PSA, WP:WIP or WP:IMPERFECT, by his redirecting without discussion an article on an arguably notable topic, not once but twice, and his actions in rather than involving in discussion, chosing to nominate the stub article. Yes, its not released "yet" but the topic is an easily acceptable exception to WP:NFF in that the film is completed , will premiere very soon , and its production is notable . It serves the project and its readers to allow this to remain and grow over time and through regular editing. It does not serve a reader's understanding of the topic to redirect to a article where this film is not even mentioned, nor does it serve the project to delete the base article through a possible fit of pique. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:32, 3 September 2013 (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.