Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miller's Girl

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 Draftify. Consensus is it does not meet N:FILM, but is most likely too soon vs. not notable at all, therefore draftification, where it can also be improved, until release makes sense. Star Mississippi 12:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miller's Girl

Miller's Girl (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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could be notable later, but it just isn't right now. Stopasianhate (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's a matter of personal opinion - if it weren't notable, it wouldn't have extensive coverage in the trades, or the talent attached to it. TheMovieGuy (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per

WP:TOOSOON, but the article could return if the film turns out to be notable. TH1980 (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. It meets notability based not only on the fact that is is a real thing that has completed production and is a well sourced and written article - which is basis enough for it to exist in the main space - but it also has a number of name stars including the lead actor from The Hobbit as well as the lead actress from Netflix's hit series Wednesday and is based off a script once featured on the exclusive Blacklist of Hollywood best unproduced scripts. This is not some obscure film, low budget student film. TheMovieGuy (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Until more coverage happens. Mike Allen 16:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The significant coverage via Deadline in three distinct articles means that per WP:GNG - the film has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and we can therefore presume this film satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Further, there is additional coverage meeting the criteria via Colliderand The Times of India. This is one of those matters where both GNG and the film notability guideline ought to be considered. The guideline on future films indicates that films which have begun shooting can be notable provided the production is notable. At this time, casting, a stage of production, has attracted media attention as evidenced by the above articles. I also turn to my perception of the guidelines which is this: We cannot have an article on every single film or potential film. There needs to be some notice or recognition by reliable media or publishing in order to demonstrate sufficient interest or notability in a topic to make it appropriate for inclusion. I think this article is consistent with the spirit of our notability standard both general and film subject specific. On balance, I consider keeping the article to be most appropriate - MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need a lot more than just a small handful of production coverage to deem a film notable enough for inclusion in advance of its release. The bar for inclusion of an unreleased film is not "three or four hits of casting and production coverage can be found" — it's "if the film collapses tomorrow and never, ever gets completed or released at all, then would it still somehow manage to stay notable

twenty years from now anyway?" The recently shelved Batgirl remake is an example of the kind of film that would clear that bar; the vast majority of films are not. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You have a valid argument. Nominating this for deletion was not an absurd decision by any means. On balance I think it's fine to keep for the reasons I mentioned. On balance is doing the heavy lifting here. Sometimes there is an unequivocal correct choice to either keep or delete. Not so here I feel. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Filming has not started yet, it is too early to have an article here.Sawelito (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sawelito, you clearly have not even looked at the article. There are sources to indicate filming has happened - it started production in September 2022. TheMovieGuy (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Until the film has been released, I don't see it justifying an article until it has been. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • hundreds of films in production have articles, the existence of the film - and the coverage of its active production in the trades - is sufficient enough justification I believe. TheMovieGuy (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason hundreds of films in production have articles is because certain editors tend to disregard what
      WP:NFILM actually says about unreleased films, which is that the overwhelming majority of films should not have articles until they're released. Films are not routinely supposed to have Wikipedia articles while they're in production; it's just that the onslaught of editors who create such articles anyway far, far exceeds the capacity of WikiProject Film to actually stay on top of them. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Readers of Wikipedia have the right to know and be informed about all films being actively produced versus just the ones that have been released. Relevancy is established by coverage and prestige - this is why short films, student films, amateur work generally speaking don't get articles. Because no one cares. People care to read about films being actively produced. People anticipate movies - and they actively want to know what's going on with them. Thus, the creation of articles as films actively go into principal production. Sure, the film may linger undistributed for a period of time or - rarely - end up not released at all but most of the time that is not the case. TheMovieGuy (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the
  WP:SIGCOV provided by User:MaxnaCarta. Frank Anchor 19:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: According to NFILM, Additionally, 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. I don't see that coverage or notabiity in the present version of this article. But I am relisting this discussion to see if both those advocating Delete and Keep would be okay with Drafticiation until this film can have demonstrable notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*

• Draftification is almost always appropriate for unreleased films. It's only inappropriate for very exceptional cases, as I stated in the AfD for Animal (2023 film). Elemimele (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafitfy, as per my original !vote for above. Mike Allen 14:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:DISCUSSAFD states You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line. IMHO, while you make it clear that you still stand with my original !vote for draft, this seems to be another bolded recommendation on a new bullet line. If it's possible, could you unbold your vote here make it clearer? Thanks. Update: Thanks for your unbolding. VickKiang (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Drafitfy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim daowd (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Users, film fans and fans of Ortega (who has over a million followers on social media) deserve to be kept aware of the existence and active production of the film itself. TheMovieGuy (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a single vote, I've strikethrough your bolded part. Of course, you can continue to comment and expand upon your views. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2023 (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.