Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem (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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requiem (film)

Article (somewhat) about a movie yet to be released. Delete as not yet noteable. --InShaneee 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Transwiki dicdef if there's anything salvageable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:29Z
• Delete as unverifiable. Probably not notable. —gorgan_almighty 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless you are planning to AfD all of these too. I don't really see how this is different to any of the other upcoming films we have articles for. - N (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. IMDB indicates it's already been shown at a Bavarian film festival, has won an award, and is set for general release on March 2. Article should be expanded by someone who can read the German-language media reports, not deleted. Monicasdude 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, fairly obvious that production is complete. Can claim notability.Bjones 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Film is complete, by notable director, about a notable incident, and will actually be released in less than two months (see [1]). Kusma (討論) 01:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think covering upcoming films is okay so long as we include only sourced speculation or details. This looks okay, although it would be good to know who's "announced" it. James James 02:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is verifiable enough for me [2]. Now if it were saying "rumor is this movie is being planned..." then yeah, crystal ball issues. But many "upcoming events" are based on announced facts, not backroom speculation, and this is one of those cases. Nice cleanup Nzd. --W.marsh 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. It'll definitely deserve an article when the film comes out, so deleting it now and readding it later on would be a bit silly. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, notable, what else can I say? --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 12:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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.