Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interceptor (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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interceptor (film)

Interceptor (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NFF, lacking significant coverage by independent sources BOVINEBOY2008 10:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This has a mild smattering of coverage. This could redirect to List_of_Netflix_original_films_(since_2022)#Feature_films_2 until it releases or gets more coverage. I did a quick search and didn't really see any other films by the same title that would merit it going to the disambiguation page at this time. I'm going to try and do a more in-depth search, but this is how I'm leaning so far. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a redirect and draftification would be a better alternative to full deletion. Just concerned that there is not demonstration of the notability of this project indicated by the sources included and the lack of significant coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 13:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is kind of borderline overall, I think that there may be enough to squeak by but it's still kind of light for my tastes. Also, I'd say that this should redirect with history, that way it's easier to recreate once it releases and if it gains more coverage (ie, reviews and so on). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Most of the films eventually make it to Wikipedia as they get more coverage, so maybe a better idea is to tag the page as lacking good citations and if there is no improvement within a certain period of time, then it can be draftified/merged with the Netflix above as proposed above? I just don't see any point in removing something that has good chances to stay within a relatively short period of time. It consumes resources on discussions/deleting and writing it again by someone else. In the worst case scenario, the draft should stay, get more coverage and re-submitted. The statistics show that most of the films of this level have a decent coverage. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C13E:2D1B:E068:CE5E (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete - Probably have been best to draftify this a year ago when this was created. Coverage didn't really happen til trailer came out earlier this month. No WP:CRYSTAL, but with Hemsworth being an exec producer and the trailer being covered by some RS already, I'd assume reviews and more coverage will occur next week when it's released. If it were to be deleted, it would be a few days before movie comes out. I guess we could make it a draft for a few days, but seems unnecessary. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - I think it's reasonable to wait a week until the film comes out and see if it receives coverage then. There's nothing seriously wrong with the article itself. Tisnec (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article has been significantly improved since the AfD nomination was made. Enough sourcing on the production itself to clear WP:NFF requirements. Covered at IF Magazine,^[1] and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation piece is pretty good coverage of the overall production effort.^[2] Additional sources, though not necessary, are surely coming soon when released. - 2pou (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per 2pou; article seems to have enough independent sources to just pass WP:NFF and more future reviews and coverage are almost certain to be posted once the film is officially released. Happily888 (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As others have stated. At least wait until it has debuted to see the response or reception it receives. - Bgsu98 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2022 (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.