Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best F(r)iends

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. Consensus is that this meets the notability requirements as it has been covered in many reliable sources. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 10:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best F(r)iends

Best F(r)iends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

IMDB is not a reliable source Kandry321 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)— Kandry321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Perhaps not, but is it notable? I mean it follows one of the worst movie of all time, this sounds quite promising.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 04:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• An earlier version of this article had a couple of independent sources, which were removed. And there are more articles about this production that can be seen in a GNews search for
  WP:NFF I am not sure if this, um, long-awaited film is ripe yet for its own article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The topic of this film is certainly notable as there has been a ton of in-depth coverage, internationally no less. [1][2][3]And many more. However, there is serious concern about the accuracy of the coverage, even by reliable sources, in Talk:Best_F(r)iends by an editor who's username is that of the stated director producer. Apparently all that was shot was a teaser trailer but it was reported that the entire film was shot and they are now actually in production with a different director. However no source confirms any of this updated information. I just don't know right now. --Oakshade (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, has been profiled in quite a few major publications like Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Independent, so it certainly has notability.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oakshade, the editor's username you bring up (my own) is not that of the stated director, but of one of the producers. It should be noted that the film's official website stipulates information that confirms the amendments made to the Wikipedia page earlier this month. This reality is concurrently reflected by the film's IMDB page and official Facebook/Instagram/Twitter outlets. Kind regards. --User:Krisbmacgregor —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Krisbmacgregor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Another Vote for Strong keep, Newly lauched Official Website has production photos If you follow on their social channels, this is a legitimate film in post production. 173.198.9.50 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — 173.198.9.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep added a couple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:TenPoundHammer, the sources you added are not reliable – their original removal is one of the reasons this discussion is happening in the first place. They were removed early in March for a reason. The articles in question contain inaccuracies that do not reflect the film's reality. Kind regards. -- Krisbmacgregor (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krisbmacgregor: Explain to me how the sources are not reliable. Entertainment Weekly and Hollywood Reporter are reliable publications. If you think the sources contain errors, then you need something more than "I know they're wrong". We can't use word of mouth as a source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: As a member of the film's production team, I can certify that both the sources in question contain factual inaccuracies. As I have mentioned to Oakshade, in the event that their not being referenced means the whole article fails to meet Wikipedia's threshold for sourcing, then the production team would prefer to see the whole article taken down for the time being rather than left up with mischaracterizing sources referenced. Many kind regards. -- Krisbmacgregor (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krisbmacgregor: If the sources are inaccurate, then try to contact the creator of the sources. We have no proof besides your own word of mouth that the sources are inaccurate, and cannot take down the article just because you think the sources are wrong. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: What matters is that all of the film's official outlets (website, Facebook fan page, etc.) substantiate that the director and production details stipulated by EW, HR, and others in October 2016 are demonstrably inaccurate. There is no reason for obviously in-error sources to be referenced on Wikipedia, in keeping with the platform's strong preference for truth. Kind regards. -- Krisbmacgregor (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This film's received quite a bit of press, with a consistent flow of attention. I'd say it satisfies the notability requirement.
  talk•cont 20:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - The film is covered by many reliable sources. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:10, 4 April 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.