Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparrow (2010 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 no consensus. NW (Talk) 13:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow (2010 film)

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

Article for unreleased movie does not meet notability guidelines in WP:NFF and WP:FUTFILM | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this comment unfair. Please take a look at the page for Natalie Portman, who has four films in post-production, all of which are listed on wikipedia. Keith1234 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1234 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Keith1234, please read WP:WAX. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep, or Incubate without prejudice toward return to mainspace. Film is due for release in 3 months, and production is getting coverage.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Either we can let this new article grow and improve through regular editing, or we can wait for it to get released and get more coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt, thank you for your comment. I would also like to add, that searching Sparrow (2010 film) is unlikely to conjure any or much response, as the film is not titled like this. The only reason this article is titled so is to obviously distinguish it from not only the article about the bird, but also from other movies... Keith1234 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Find sources" can occasionally be misleading, but as you see above, I do try to dig a little deeper. If you can provide links to additional articles about the film, such would be most helpful in improving the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent but straying towards delete. I get very uneasy about articles concerning unreleased films. WP:CRYSTAL suggests, in my mind, that even with concrete, reliable sources, discussion should be held pending public release. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Hold Hold because the film is getting some coverage so it exist, though it is yet to be released. Delete because there's nothing here to make it notable? TwoRiversWC (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not fulfill WP:NF. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film is getting considerable coverage and article has now been improved with more references. Keith1234 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 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.