Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond and Ray

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 WP:GNG trumps WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond and Ray

[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)

per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF, no evidence has been provided that filming has begun (all sources predate scheduled filming dates), there is already a draft at Draft:Raymond and Ray BOVINEBOY2008 18:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is filming, it began on October 4. And again it does not matter if the sources predate the filming start. Rusted AutoParts 18:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- RAP, it literally says in WP:NFF: "Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Beyond this, two articles about this film is not enough info to indicate that it is notable for a stand-alone article yet. BOVINEBOY2008 18:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Theres three sources now, and a production listing that supports the recent source placing McGregor in the area to film. And as long as we can prove filming is commenced whether it’s a regular reported on project isn’t necessary. Rusted AutoParts 18:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The third article merely has a passing mention of the film giving context to the gossip-style article about the actors. Does not contribute to the film's notability. BOVINEBOY2008 19:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it’s about McGregor and his wife dining out is irrelevant it’s there to bolster the October filming start the existing sources claimed. I’d use the production listing tweet but I figured it would be ruled out as being social media. The film is notable due to the reports about it, if there was zero reporting about it that’s a different story. Hell it’s a film that the governor of the state specifically talked about, so it’s a project of prominence. Rusted AutoParts 19:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can wait until the film comes out and there's substantial source material. I see no reason to rush an article into place when it has only started filming. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that’s not the standard we employ for the vast majority of film articles. The primary thing we need to confirm is it’s filming start in order for it to begin existing. Rusted AutoParts 19:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the standard we employ is WP:GNG. There aren't enough sources for GNG, at present. You can wait until there are more sources to make a claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or move to draft space until such times as (a) the film is released, or (b) the production phase (filming) becomes notable. There is no indication in this article that the film is generally notable, and none to indicate the production has any notability. Fails WP:NFF spectacularly. Platonk (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deadline has reported confirmation that the film is currently in production in Virginia, as well as additional cast. Rmaloney3 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly frustrating as more information on the film, such as filming dates, locations and casting, have been released since this deletion discussion started. This article matches similar quality as other movie articles Bovine has assessed and yet this one stands to be deleted when it no longer fails GNG. Rusted AutoParts 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this deletion discussion was created, we have gained additional sources stating that principal photography has began. Therefore, I do believe that the article passes both NFF and GNG, and should remain. JustaFilmFan (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearing WP:NFF is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion; evidence of WP:GNG has been claimed to exist, but has yet to be demonstrated here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll make one final iteration that, since this page was nominated, more reporting about it was made and updates about the production have been added. It more than suffices both NFF and GNG at this point. Rusted AutoParts 18:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:NFF because the production itself isn't notable. Quoting from NFF: 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. Platonk (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That caveat is rarely ever employed though. There’s a plethora of stub film articles that exist solely by succeeding the more important filming start necessity. Even then, virtually every upcoming film article that exists in mainspace would fail NFF if we enforced there needing to be a trailer or something. Rusted AutoParts 19:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not notable then they should be deleted. I don't understand the urgency to write upon NN subjects. Why not wait until the subject is notable? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable though. You might think differently but they don’t need a physical trailer to prove they exist and are notable. That caveat is pretty outdated at this point. Rusted AutoParts 20:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Please read Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. And finally, just because there are other instances of policy violations doesn't make the policy invalid in this, or any, case. If you don't like a policy or guideline, you can always seek to change it (through the proper channels). Platonk (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is my core argument, this is just discussion to drum up any last minute additions from people not yet chiming in if any. Two of those are essays, so they don't have much barring on much of anything really. Rusted AutoParts 21:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Principal filming has begin, the film has major stars, there is already sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and it is almost certain that the volume of coverage in reliable sources will be increasing significantly as time goes by. The trailer issue is irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 1 November 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.