- 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. NW (Talk) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable future film... Fails WP:NFF... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the production of this film doesn't meet WP:N yet. dissolvetalk 09:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep coverage of this film in reliable sources allow that it appears one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF, per Cinema Blend, Variety, CinemaRx (Italian), Variety, IGN, Monsters and Critics, Slash Film, Hollywood Reporter, Cinematical, Cinema Blend, Showhype, Screen Crave, CanMag, Variety, Empire Online, Hollywood Stock Exchange... and quite a few others... all quite suitable for properly sourcing this article, and allowing it to grow through the course of normal editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hollywood Reporter source indicates that the film is in postproduction, but per WP:NFF: "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 of these sources do you feel meets the standard of notability for the actual production of the film and not just the announcement/casting? dissolvetalk 05:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFF was set up because proposed or announced films might never make it past the planning stage, and until filming begins remain as speculation. Since you shared the key inclusion criteria of WP:NFF in "...unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", a better question, specially since principle filming has finished and it is now documented as in post-production, of the ones I found speaking toward the project, which do you feel fail in meeting the notability requirements of WP:GNG? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm hung up on the vagueness of "unless the production itself is notable". None of these sources are about the actual production of the film. Development & pre-production, sure. Now if what's meant by WP:NFF is: if a film has actually gone into production, and there are multiple reliable sources about it, but not about the actual production process, then it would meet that standard. dissolvetalk 08:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If its any help, the article on Film production explains in pretty fair detail that "film production" covers the entire process of making a film, from its initial story idea or commission, its scriptwriting, its shooting, its editing and its distribution to an audience. So it may be seen that the development & pre-production, as well as actual shooting and release, all fall under the term. The caveats of WP:NFF allow that once a film has entered or completed principle filming, the decent coverage in reliable sources of the various aspects of production is what then might then allow it to meet notability criteria and thus merit an article. Following the caveats are what allow the occasional article on an as-yet unreleased film. If there was no coverage, there could be not sourcable article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well to me and everyone I know in the film business, production refers to the actual production process. If WP:NFF doesn't refer to this, the wording should be changed to be less vague. dissolvetalk 20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being myself active in the film and television industry as an actor, occasional writer, and one-time producer, I take a wider view that includes the entire production process. Development and pre-production are all part of the process of creating a film. When there are differences in personal views on the matter, we defer to existing definitions as provided within these pages. Though WP:NFF might be re-written to exclude the consideration of GNG and the entire scope of a film's creation, this particular film will be by then released and have even more coverage in RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well to me and everyone I know in the film business, production refers to the actual production process. If WP:NFF doesn't refer to this, the wording should be changed to be less vague. dissolvetalk 20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If its any help, the article on Film production explains in pretty fair detail that "film production" covers the entire process of making a film, from its initial story idea or commission, its scriptwriting, its shooting, its editing and its distribution to an audience. So it may be seen that the development & pre-production, as well as actual shooting and release, all fall under the term. The caveats of WP:NFF allow that once a film has entered or completed principle filming, the decent coverage in reliable sources of the various aspects of production is what then might then allow it to meet notability criteria and thus merit an article. Following the caveats are what allow the occasional article on an as-yet unreleased film. If there was no coverage, there could be not sourcable article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm hung up on the vagueness of "unless the production itself is notable". None of these sources are about the actual production of the film. Development & pre-production, sure. Now if what's meant by WP:NFF is: if a film has actually gone into production, and there are multiple reliable sources about it, but not about the actual production process, then it would meet that standard. dissolvetalk 08:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFF was set up because proposed or announced films might never make it past the planning stage, and until filming begins remain as speculation. Since you shared the key inclusion criteria of WP:NFF in "...unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", a better question, specially since principle filming has finished and it is now documented as in post-production, of the ones I found speaking toward the project, which do you feel fail in meeting the notability requirements of WP:GNG? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The ample sources found by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs), such as the Cinematical article, prove that Easy A passes WP:GNG / WP:N. Notability is established. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Anything with that much news coverage, is notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 09:40, 12 November 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.