Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Evan Hansen (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. Geschichte (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear_Evan_Hansen_(film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Per Wiki guidance: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."

Thus, this one does not meet the criteria.

Failed WP:NFF and WP:FUTURE

Delete! Kolma8 (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Variety showing that filming is underway here. The pre-production phase is well-covered which indicates notability for the topic. In other words, when a film's production is well-covered, it tends to mean that its reception will be well-covered too. And considering the subject matter, it's highly unlikely that this film's release won't get coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify as per future film guidelines. There is a widespread misunderstanding of the film guidelines that a film is notable when it begins or finishes production. The guideline is not as clear as it should be, but it says that films that have not begun production are never notable, and that films that have begun production are seldom notable, only if production itself is notable. Normally films are only notable when they have been released and reviewed. This is no exception and does not warrant an article while it is still in the works. In particular, articles on film projects that have not yet been released are typically either promotional, by paid editors for the studio or producer, or fancruft, by people who want to discuss the film in advance. This is a good-faith case where the proponents appear to be enthusiastic fans, but the guidelines are that unreleased films are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not true at all. WP:CRYSTAL says, "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF)." It says that there can be articles about unreleased products as long as we avoid advertising and unverified claims. The article currently has the industry trade papers Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood covering the film like it does any other film. There is no promotional tone in the article; it is a dry reporting of facts of how the production got underway. There is no effusive language like "award-winning" anywhere. Please strike your stance in line with policy. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepKolma8 is categorically wrong that the article fails WP:NFF. The article is well-sourced from industry publications, and we have reliable sources stating that prinicipal photography has commnenced. Moreover, the article is related to a film adaptation of an award-winning musical, starring several well-known actors. It would be absolutely ludicrous to delete or even draftify an erticle as notable as this one. JustaFilmFan (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Per Erik and JustaFilmFan. Rusted AutoParts 02:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep As per Erik, JustaFilmFan, and Rusted AutoParts. Pahiy (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like an obvious keep. If an article fails a SNG but passess GNG, then it's still considered notable. That's just how these things work. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I understand that an article about a movie in production could be created by paid editors and full of fancruft, and that might be a reason to delete. But this article is not like that, so the argument appears to be that it should be treated like it's paid editing, even if it's not. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as User:MJL. I would like to say, however: JustaFilmFan, if one thing is notable and another thing is created by the same creator, that does not necessarily mean its notable. A perfect example being Among Us. The creator of Among us, Innersloth, used to have an article, but was not notable enough to have its own, and was re-directed to the game. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 14:43, 21 October 2020 (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.