Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast Five (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) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Five (film)

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

I am procedurally nominating this article here at AfD because I believe that this article is beyond "uncontroversial deletion." The PROD rationale was "Per the notability guidelines in WP:MOVIE, this planned movie should not have its own article yet (the production is too recently started to be certain of a final product). If kept, article needs to be pared down only to those aspects notable to the movie itself." Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite my near-total lack of interest in the 5th movie in this series, I don't feel the article about a pending movie should be deleted. It satisfied notability guidelines (WP:N) as well as the specific criterion for inclusion under the specific rules for (WP:NFF future films). To remove any lingering doubts, I have updated the article to include a reference to Variety (a reliable published source), which mentions that "lensing" has started in Puerto Rico. I assume "lensing" is the same thing as principal photography. Other referenced web sites show pictures of the cast. I, along with others, have removed extraneous details about arrests or weather problems in Puerto Rico. I am also hoping someone will nominate this article for semi-protection, due to number of annoying anonymous edits this topic has attracted. rhyre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going with weak keep. The series itself is notable (happy to say I've never seen any of them) and there's no WP:CBALL here except to say that it will' be released, instead of it already having been released. — Timneu22 · talk 21:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the person who prodded the article in the first place. WP:NFF states two criteria for having their own article. The first is that principal photography have been starting; I stipulate that this is in fact the case for the movie and is met. The second criteria, however, is this: "Additionally, 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." This has not been met, in my opinion. There are 6 references. One is to IMDB, which generally does not qualify as a reliable source. A second is a set of photographs on comingsoon.net; this certainly does not establish notability (it merely establishes existence). A third source, also from comingsoon.net, indicates it is unreliable--note that the authors are "scoopers" (i.e., SPS) who are merely repeating what is in a PR newspaper. The Variety source seems solid, the screenrant and collider sources possibly (I don't know enough about the industry to be certain these are reliable). To me, this doesn't satisfy GNG--if it did, then pretty much any future film by a major company would qualify, and it seems to be that WP:NFF is specifically trying to stop from happening. The only grounds I can see for keeping are WP:IAR, if we want to logic that it seems more likely than not that this article will eventually need to be made, and thus taking it down just makes more work later. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I used the article to confirm a rumour I heard of the fifth film, the film is going to be big due to the following from the other films and the cast. Atkinsonhd (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I used the article to confirm a rumour I heard" is not a reason for keeping. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 26 July 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.