Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Earth 2010

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. Currently consensus is in favor of deletion but also in favor of allowing recreation once the subject became sufficiently notable. If someone wants to have it userfied or incubated, please contact me. Regards So Why 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Earth 2010

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

The article was PROD'ed but the author removed the PROD claiming that Google will yield an image on IMDb; however, even with that, I believe it still fails the WP:NF guidelines as it has no good sources (IMDb is speculative) and it's full of WP:CRYSTAL (it's going to come out in 2010?). —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I substantially editted the article to wikify it, and now it is more of a stub to reflect the indie nature of the film. There is a California Chronicle article that describes the film at length. Right now I say keep, and see if the film gains more notoriety. Angryapathy (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Cman7792 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This film has information on online and in many newspapers, especially in connecticut. as the film gets closer to being released, more information on the film will be released as well. so for the time being, keep this article.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual title of the film is "Another Earth," not "Another Earth 2010," according to the two New Haven Register articles I found (there was a third, but it was just a passing mention). No mention of the film in the Hartford Courant. I don't have access to the Connecticut Post via database, but a search of their website only brings up one of the Register articles, so I'm guessing they haven't covered it. I added the two good Register articles as citations; The California Chronicle is a mirror of the 11/23 article in the Register, but I didn't know the protocol about adding a link to another paper's website. Note the dates on the two Register articles: October 3 and November 23 of this year. They were filming just a couple of weeks ago. That part makes me a little nervous. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little coverage, from non-notable production company. Oct 3 and Nov 23 Register articles more about filming ___location and director, respectively, than about the film itself. Delete and wait until closer to release to re-evaluate notability. --skew-t (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indie film that doesn't meet any of the elements of WP:NOTFILM even were it released, which it has not been. Of the three references listed by Some Jerk, as he says, one is a mirror of a second, which is an article on the director of the movie, not on the movie itself, and so fails as a reference. This leaves a single reference, which doesn't satisfy WP:V. Beyond that, the general criterion on WP:NOTFILM holds that only "full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers " (emphasis mine) counts as valid refs. The degree to which the New Haven Register, with only a third the circulation of the Hartford Courant and isn't even widely circulated beyond its home two counties in Connecticut, is a "large circulation newspaper" I leave up to your opinions, but I wouldn't think it was one myself. Ravenswing 13:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate I gave the article a cleanup, and feel it will benefit from incubation so that it might receive continued attention and sourcing before a return to mainspace upon release and additional coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The little coverage that has been found is mostly passing mentions in articles on other subjects, except for one local paper article about the production. Incubation would be reasonable if there was a high likelihood of the film becoming notable in the future, but it is an independent film by a seemingly non-notable director (the link to his name in the article goes to a different person named "Mike Cahill", unless the director also happens to be a retired professional tennis player), with a cast of non-star actors. Perhaps it will break through, but many small films do not. If that happens, a new article can be created or the old one revived via WP:DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2009 (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.