Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Out (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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. See my comments below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get Out (film)

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

Is minor film, not even released yet, article needs to be rewritten to not sound like promo, but because it isn't released it can't be fixed so AfD L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article has multiple reliable sources, including a review from The Hollywood Reporter. While it hasn't had a widespread release yet, it has already had its premiere at Sundance. And I really do not understand the accusation that it is somehow written to sound like a promo. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to get up in your face, but the way the plot is worded lead him to a truth that he never could have imagined. sounds like it is copied out of a brochure. I came across this article when someone tried to turn the period into a … .L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I think that arguing that the article needs to be rewritten due to a single, poorly worded sentence is a tad bit extreme. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This deletion notice just seems like an overreaction. I don't really see what's wrong with using a "promo" blurb, so long as it serves as a decent summary of the movie and doesn't explicitly market itself by comparing itself to other unrelated films. For the record, the blurb seems to be taken from this trailer description. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to close this as a speedy keep since this very obviously passes NFILM for several reasons and the reasons for deletion are all routine maintenance. Here are the reasons why this passes:

The film had its world premiere at Sundance via a secret screening, where it received quite a few reviews (16), enough for a rating at Rotten Tomatoes. These are more than enough reviews to pass NFILM, especially as there are reviews by AV Club, Variety, RogerEbert.com, The Hollywood Reporter, and Consequence of Sound, all of which are considered to be RS.
Even prior to this screening the film still received a decent amount of coverage, enough to where it could be argued that it passed NFF. The reason for this is likely a mixture of Peele's overall popularity but also because he had recently released Keanu with his comedy partner and the film was fairly well received. A lot of news outlets found it an interesting jump in genre. While it didn't receive the amount of coverage like DC and Marvel films do prior to release, it was still quite a bit of coverage. I'd also kind of argue against it being a minor film, as it's getting a wide theatrical release later this month and you can see trailers for this film on television. While again, it's not as big of a release as the huge superhero blockbusters, it's far from being one of those movies that would play in less than 100 theaters and then go straight to video.
Finally, what you're arguing here is something that can be fixable and doesn't really have anything to do with notability. The plot section can be rewritten in order to remove the overly promotional tones and I've done just that. It actually needed to be re-written anyway, since it was taken from the promotional material for the film, which makes it a copyright violation. Basically, AfD is not meant to be cleanup, especially when it's on a topic that has more than enough sourcing to pass NFILM.

I'm going to close this out since there's not a snowball's chance that this will close as a delete when we have ample pre and post premiere coverage for the movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 2 February 2017 (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.