Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel (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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel (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)

Article is about a movie that fails WP:CRYSTAL and does not cite sources other than IMDb. Would not be opposed to recreation when the movie is notable. Gosox(55)(55) 04:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried to fix it by editing and revising it, but the production section still makes no sense to me. The movie also has no set release date from what i could find. Most of the information at this point is listed on its imdb page and does not have much relevance on wikipedia currently. However, once a release date is announced and the movie has its own website, I can see it having an article on wikipedia. Dflav1138 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep I feel like everything Schmidt has done helped make the article clearer and more relevant. The law suit stands out as information that helps people understand the delay of the filming, and makes this film just as notable as any other film. Dflav1138 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and continue improvements. I performed some additional expansion and cleanup, but only after User:Dflav1138. In reading available sources, I was able to make better sense of the article and perform copyedit, expansion, and further sourcing. With respects to the moderator's WP:BEFORE, the article now includes easily found sources per Dflav1138 and myself. Further, WP:CRYSTAL specifically states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." As filming began last February and the project is receiving coverage in multiple reliable sources, along with coverage because of its many notable actors, I believe notability as been established and it is of benefit to the project to allow this article to remain and be further improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements by editors Dflav1138 , MichaelQSchmidt , DreamFocus and Hebrides. Noteability now seems well established. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:23, 13 January 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.