Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knives Out 2

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knives Out 2

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Knives Out 2 This film does not satisfy film notability guidelines, and in particular does not satisfy future film guidelines. The future film guidelines are poorly written and are often misunderstood. There is a myth that a film is considered notable if a reliable source states that production (principal photography or animation) has begun. A more careful reading of the guideline shows that films are divided into three groups based on stages of production:

1. Films for which production has not begun, which are not notable, and are usually redirected, to the director, the book, the franchise, or some related topic.
2. Films that have entered principal photography (or animation) but have not been released.
3. Films that have been released to theatres.

Films that have been in production but not yet released are notable only if production itself has achieved general notability. Films that have been released to theatres are notable based on reviews or similar coverage. This film has been in principal photography but has not yet been released, and so is notable only if production itself satisfies general notability. An article should speak for itself as to why the subject is notable; but nothing in this article says that production has been notable.

Because the notability criterion for the second group is poorly written, some film articles are written to provide a handwave that production is in progress or completed. The removal of the notability tag was a handwave, and did not make the article speak for itself

A detailed analysis of the sources has not been provided at this time, but many of the sources simply identify cast members, and advance identification of cast members is not significant coverage.

A film notability tag was removed from the article with the edit summary "Removed {{Notability}} tag: This film is in the news all the time. Def passes WP:GNG ". Nothing in the article refers to news about the film, which may or may not be significant. A statement in an edit summary does not establish notability. (If significant coverage of the film can be added to the article, that is what the Heymann rule is for.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – I would understand starting an AFD on an independent film moved to mainspace because it just started filming but you're saying Knives Out 2 fails WP:GNG? The Netflix sequel bought alongside a third film for $469 million? The Rian Johnson ensemble film that has received a lot of media attention and dozens of interviews just about it? In what way does this article fail WP:GNG or WP:NFILM? It clearly passes the statement that "Films that have been in production but not yet released are notable only if production itself has achieved general notability." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Some Dude From North Carolina. The production itself has already been treated as newsworthy. Indeed, language like "mind-boggling deal" goes more than far enough to indicate why it's a project worth remarking upon. With that much money on the line and principal photography already under way, the only thing that could stop this from a general release would be a disaster that would itself be newsworthy. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I do not see how this does not meet NFILM or GNG. It seems to satisfy both criteria. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the editor who removed the notability tag, I agree with the statements above, especially from Some Dude From North Carolina, as the amount of press that went into covering its acquisition by Netflix, to the coverage of the actors being cast, this clearly and easily pass WP:GNG. This nomination reminds me of the nomination last summer for Mulan, when an editor wanted the article deleted simply because Disney delayed its release. Anyway...again, my opinion is Keep. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point, the Rubicon has been passed; with all these casting announcements and a distributor solidified, it would still be a keep if somehow the film didn't come to fruition. Meets NFILM/GNG easily. Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the editors above that the coverage of the deal demonstrates notability for the production (even if the film ends up never getting a release). I suppose it would (at present) be possible to cover all the relevant information at Knives Out#Sequels, but I really don't see the point in doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2021 (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.