Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis Eternal (2nd nomination)

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Eternal

Despite over six months passing since last AfD, no apparent progress has been made on this, nor has any evidence emerged to suggest that it passes the future film notability guidelines. Article presently seems to be promotional in tone and intention. If notability is solely contingent on fundraising, then this is not a notable film, it's a notable marketing method, no? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. The film does not exist. Proxy User (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for further expansion. Article is well sourced and passed the WP:GNG with flying colors. Pity that it had not been expanded since the last AfD, but thank goodness wiki has no WP:DEADLINE. Heck... maybe I'll even do some expansion myself, as the refs offer plenty from which to work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I'd say delete, as we're not a crystal ball in to the future of film or any other discipline. But the letter and spirit of verifiability definitely overrules that inclination this time around. The sourcing is pretty darn concrete. Steven Walling (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AfD mentions WP:NFF which says the film should either have begun principal photography or its production itself meets WP:N. This appears to satisfy the second option quite well. -SColombo (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect - even where N is met, the articles are merged to source material or the bios of principal players. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF doesn't say that, and the idea is silly anyway: that way, we'd have to have multiple copies of the information about the film, whereas with an article for the film we can avoid that duplication. JulesH (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF says Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. and Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. which has generally been interpreted to mean that films must both pass the GNC and have begun shooting to havea stand alone article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to satisfy WP:N. Whether or not the film ever gets made, its funding method ensures that it is notable. JulesH (talk) 17:23, 11 February 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.