The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poltergeist (2015 movie)

[change source]
Poltergeist (2015 movie) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Auntof6 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Unreleased movie with no indication of notability. Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

[change source]
Then improve it -- add something to show notability. We don't keep articles that have the potential to be improved. We keep them based on what they currently have. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tough one. For most movies, I'd personally be inclined to wait until release for the movie to demonstrate notability. But Star Wars: The Force Awakens was clearly notable the minute it was announced. So it's too difficult to make a hard-and-fast rule. In this case, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and say (weak) keep because of its tie to the original, definitely notable Poltergeist. But please improve on it. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, so the fact that the original was notable is not a reason to keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically true. But if it is otherwise a tossup, the fact that the original was notable might just be enough to push it over the line. More to the point is what has happened with this: because (at least partly) of the notability of the original, this movie has gotten enough pre-release review and buzz to generate some mention in reliable sources. So the article is now fleshed out enough for me to have changed my "weak keep" to a full "keep". StevenJ81 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? By using the notability guideline on movies. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the time you wrote here, more information had been added, including some references. At the time it was nominated it had less info and no references (unless you count the IMDB link). Still, none of the info added since the nomination shows notability and it fails WP:NOTFILM. If it can be shown to pass that guideline after it comes out, then people can change their comments here. As for other articles with little information, feel free to nominate them as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they can be reviewed before release because critics get advance copies for that purpose. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide whether to keep articles based on what information there might be in the future. We decide based on what's currently in them. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, an article like this can and should be deleted. As mentioned above the improvement is based solely largely on the trailers. A consensus among critics on the actual movie could be a week or more after the release. Interesting that those cited by Metacritic are not that good (1 positive, 1 negative, 5 mediocre). At any rate, the article will need to be rewritten again to reflect the actual movie. Consensus in the past has been we don't write articles on future movie releases. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite so. Movies can be reviewed before they're released because the critics get advance copies for that purpose. And we can have articles on future releases if they meet the guideline -- the guideline addresses that specifically. --~~
And as I pointed out before, some movies are clearly notable before they are released. The guideline actually has a fair amount of flexibility in it. And while I wrote above that I think it's probably better to wait until after release most of the time, consistent with what Rus793 just said, you just can't make that a hard and fast rule. Sometimes, it just doesn't apply. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 06:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Category