Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havana Heat (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Havana Heat (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOTFILM. Prod removed by Anon IP. ttonyb (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF. Although the film is real and in pre-production, this article seems to be a hoax created by newly created account Tony Horden (talk · contribs). The only external link provided in the article is Valentina Reshetnikova's IMDb entry; Valentina Reshetnikova has no relation to this film at all. The correct IMDb entry for Havana Heat shows that principal photography is not scheduled to commence until January 2011. Per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." The reason I call the article a hoax is that the vast majority of the information contained in the article is incorrect, such as the actors and crew; none of the major actors listed in the article are scheduled to appear in a film of that title. Further, Tony Horden created a hoax article yesterday on Peter Maloney. Maloney is indeed a real actor who has made a career of minor roles, roles sometimes so minor that at times he was uncredited. However, his article as of this version shows many credits that Maloney has no relation to and goes so far as to claim that Maloney has won several Academy and Emmy awards. Tony Horden created the Maloney article but a lot of the expansion came from IP 86.170.237.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's worth noting that the same IP made this edit on Havana Heat making it likely that the IP and Tony Horden are related. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate the now improved and sourced article for a few weeks until actual filming is confirmed. Despite perceived problems with its author elsewhere, THIS topic is NOT a hoax, and IS receiving (slowly)growing (related)coverage. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, the external link was easily corrected, and sources added. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind expanding on what you mean by "growing coverage"? Tayrona Entertainment Group released a press statement/promo kit around August 18 and all of the other sources seem to be from August 18 or 19. That would constitute "coverage" but has there been anything recently to justify calling it "growing"? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No press release was used to source the article... only available articles in such as Variety (magazine), Entertainment Weekly, Canmag, Broadway World, etc. That the release "may" have inspired them to do their editorial duty and then research an article before publication is fine... as we have long judged them as WP:RS without having to demand full disclosure of their editorial and fact-checking processes every time they print a bylined article. RS is RS. And some very recent articles about Wesley Snipes and his tax problems also speak toward his contracted role in the film. Yes, it fails NFF... but I feel due to the individuals involved and its past and current coverage, it is worth incubation fr a short time. Incubation is a win-win for the project and its readers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll grant you that RS is RS and the source of the coverage is not too relevant. The crux of my question above is in regards to what "growing coverage" means or at least implies. The article is sourced with articles dating from August 18 and 19. Has there been any coverage since then to suggest that this is not all there is to the coverage of this film and that the coverage is actually growing? The reason I ask that is that, without more recent coverage that addresses the film directly and in detail, the statement of "growing coverage" is incorrect. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you would thus deny the reasonableness of an incubation of a sourced article on a film that is to begin filming sometime in the next few weeks? If there was a wealth of recent coverage I might have opined a keep per coverage of production allowing it as an exception to NFF, but as recent coverage is more toward Snipes and his tax problems perhaps impeding his participation, I opined for an incubation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty unfair to call me unreasonable simply for disagreeing with you on the best course of action. I see no growing coverage, only initial coverage from three months ago. Per that initial coverage, I believe the article should be deleted per NFF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please... I have not called you unreasonable, specially as your discourse here proves you are not unreasonable. Its just that due to the film not currently meriting being an exception to NFF, I am referring to my own opinion toward incubation as being a reasonable and guideline-encourged alternative to flat deletion in this case... specially as userfication to this problematic author is definitely not a viable option, and because WP:INCUBATION was specifically created as an option for such articles. What I am asking rather, is whether or not you agree that incubation is a reasonable consideration, and if not, then why not? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty unfair to call me unreasonable simply for disagreeing with you on the best course of action. I see no growing coverage, only initial coverage from three months ago. Per that initial coverage, I believe the article should be deleted per NFF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you would thus deny the reasonableness of an incubation of a sourced article on a film that is to begin filming sometime in the next few weeks? If there was a wealth of recent coverage I might have opined a keep per coverage of production allowing it as an exception to NFF, but as recent coverage is more toward Snipes and his tax problems perhaps impeding his participation, I opined for an incubation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll grant you that RS is RS and the source of the coverage is not too relevant. The crux of my question above is in regards to what "growing coverage" means or at least implies. The article is sourced with articles dating from August 18 and 19. Has there been any coverage since then to suggest that this is not all there is to the coverage of this film and that the coverage is actually growing? The reason I ask that is that, without more recent coverage that addresses the film directly and in detail, the statement of "growing coverage" is incorrect. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No press release was used to source the article... only available articles in such as Variety (magazine), Entertainment Weekly, Canmag, Broadway World, etc. That the release "may" have inspired them to do their editorial duty and then research an article before publication is fine... as we have long judged them as WP:RS without having to demand full disclosure of their editorial and fact-checking processes every time they print a bylined article. RS is RS. And some very recent articles about Wesley Snipes and his tax problems also speak toward his contracted role in the film. Yes, it fails NFF... but I feel due to the individuals involved and its past and current coverage, it is worth incubation fr a short time. Incubation is a win-win for the project and its readers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind expanding on what you mean by "growing coverage"? Tayrona Entertainment Group released a press statement/promo kit around August 18 and all of the other sources seem to be from August 18 or 19. That would constitute "coverage" but has there been anything recently to justify calling it "growing"? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 03:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NFF, and is doubly problematic due to its edit history, with no prejudice for its recreation when appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 26 November 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.