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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code 8 (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON. The movie has yet to enter principle photography; per WP:FFILM, such articles should not have articles, and I don't think there's enough reliable, secondary sources to make an exception. JudgeRM 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The associated short film could potentially be notable and merit an article (has some level of secondary sources, possibly not enough), but the feature length film itself has yet to enter principle photography as per nom, thus fails WP:NFF crh23 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC) With the significant re-writing of the article, my original argument no longer stands, so I have retracted it. I may come back and judge the new article if I have the time. Good work those who rewrote it! —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 16:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts"

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: Just my thoughts based upon past situations, but as the 2016 short film has been created and released, an article might be possible on it which can then be merged to an article on the 2017 film when it begins filming and has coverage... just as was done for the short teaser film Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse when it became part of This Is the End. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree from the comment above! Trying to change the page to Code 8 (2016 short film) with {{DISPLAYTITLE:desired title:Code 8 (2016 short film)}}, but was not being able to. User:Spartacus905 02:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• THAT is something that will be done after this discussion is closed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Alright, so what are the next steps? User:Spartacus905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus905 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since the page has details, development, history, and most importantly, references. User:Spartacus905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus905 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this seems convincing to keep. Delete as none of this actually suggests solid better satisfying the films notability, unlikely to have any considerable improvements anytime soon. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:NEXIST and WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Currently, not a single reference from a RS. Searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, this newsblog source from Entertainment Tonight and this source from Deadline were present in the article before your !vote above (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct, I should have been more specific, assuming the et blog is reliable (wp:newsblog only says they may be considered reliable, and should be used with caution), I should have said that the article only had 2 reliable sources, one of which, being an interview, was invalid to show notability as per WP:PRIMARY. I don't know how I mis-interpreted the Deadline source, I know I looked at it (the hyperlink is the different color after you click on it).

• Delete (switching to neutral-leaning-weak-delete, see below) -- WP:TOOSOON per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TOOSOON is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As with many essays, it's a shortcut and implicates a particular dimension of policies/guidelines. It's lazy, admittedly, but can be assumed to imply WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:GNG, and/or other elements of WP:NOT or subject-specific notability criteria (in this case WP:NFF). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Code 8, as suggested above by MichaelQSchmidt and Spartacus905 – The short film meets WP:GNG. The expanded film does not appear to have commenced filming yet (WP:NFF), but has received some significant coverage in reliable sources. These sources were found by using the Find sources template atop this nomination page. Since the short film meets notability guidelines, content about the expected expanded version can be included in this article, because the expected expanded version is based upon the short. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As I understand it, it's not a short film but a teaser trailer to get backers. It's a weird scenario, to be sure, because that means that while I don't think we should have a separate article on the trailer, there's a question of whether it could be argued that principal photography has technically begun. (i.e. productions don't usually start filming a little bit, then get funding, then resume filming the rest of it). To me, I think we should not have an article on a teaser. With This is the End, as I understand, Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse wasn't originally conceived as a trailer for a longer film -- it was conceived to have the format of a trailer but just to be a short film (which was then adapted into a movie). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources refer to it as a short film (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You have the same link repeated there -- did you mean to include a third? I did look through them, though. I note that Deadline does talk about it as a short, but the Gizmodo article says "turns out that the short film was just a teaser for a much larger project" and links to their initial post about it, which starts "A short, intriguing teaser for a film called Code 8 just hit the web". So you're right that it's not entirely clear-cut, but it seems like it should be treated as a trailer. That said, I certainly have no objection to draftifying/userfying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The associated short film could potentially be notable and merit an article (has some level of secondary sources, possibly not enough), but the feature length film itself has yet to enter principle photography as per nom, thus fails WP:NFF Daniel Kenneth (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete this film hasn't been released yet, so I agree with the logic of WP:TOOSOON. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as User:MichaelQSchmidt already said above: the short film already exists. I think that's already enough to warrant the article as the notability is clearly given - I don't think that I need to list all of the international news reports on it (simply too many; there are even some from a month ago [4]). There's no good argument for deleting the article (just to recreate it later on) but the count of people that voted for it here. --Fixuture (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep title now as a redirect... now that my concerns over the planned film "Code 8 (2017 film)" have been addressed and the article NOW concentrates on the sourcable filmed and released "Code 8 (2016 film)" through content and multiple sources. And since it does not merit its own article until its filming begins, information on the planed 2017 film can always be written of and sourced at Code 8#Planned feature film. And in pinging JudgeRM, Crh23, Onel5969, Spartacus905, Daniel kenneth, ThePlatypusofDoom, Rhododendrites, Northamerica1000, SwisterTwister, and Fixuture... to summarize: While it was simply TOO SOON for "Code 8 (2017 film)", the current article on short film Code 8 meets WP:NF. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Code 8. The short film, as it appears, does in fact meet WP:NF. As such, the article should stay about the short film, not the feature film, until such feature film is made and released. JudgeRM 18:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. Just as in the examples I offered way above, plans for making a feature can be spoken of in the article about the short and if (or when) the feature is made, it might have its own article. This can be determined next year. Thank you for swaying your original stance. Y. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I've struck my delete vote, not because I think it should be kept but because it's sufficiently ambiguous that it needs more careful consideration than I can give it right now. If I were forced to choose, I'd still be delete, however, because this is not meant as a stand-alone short film. It's a teaser trailer to get funding for the full version. The question is, could it be said that principal photography has begun in order to create the "short", or should it be treated like any other promo for something that does not yet exist. Ultimately, it comes down to: if this movie is never made, do we want to treat a trailer for it as notable? I'm not so sure... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's not a teaser trailer but a short film that's also a teaser promo for a full-length film. Also as it stands now the whole thing already is notable - no matter whether or not it is done (note that in the case that it's not done the article should contain the [notable] info about how such a large funding campaign failed). Btw. the film didn't just get so much attention for its quality etc. but also for being a crowdfunded film. --Fixuture (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Length is not the deciding factor... coverage is... just as Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse had coverage enough long before This Is the End became a film. And while most trailers fail our inclusion standards... some very few do meet them. And too, that same determination applies to any short film that eventually is made into a feature... coverage. Having watched it I am quite impressed by its quality and the fact that it gained over four times the funding wished and they now have the funds to make a truly awesome film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks to be directed at me, but I've never said length has anything to do with it. As I said above "Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse wasn't originally conceived as a trailer for a longer film -- it was conceived to have the format of a trailer but just to be a short film (which was then adapted into a movie)". Here we have a teaser trailer in the format of a short film. That distinction matters. In general I agree the film has gotten some attention, the crowdfunding has been a success, etc. and that's why I struck my delete !vote. But I'm torn, because if it wouldn't be appropriate for us to have an article about a movie that has not begun principal photography with this degree of sourcing, I don't know that it's appropriate to keep this one. I feel like we're both repeating ourselves, though, so as I don't have any new perspective to offer on this, I'll probably leave it at that. This certainly looks like it's going to be kept now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Teaser trailers are usually only 30 to 90 seconds in length, and oncerns about the earlier version article about an unmade 2017 film can be forgotten. We need now simply treat this well-covered ten minute short film on its own merits just as we might any other short. Guideline instructs that if a film (short or feature) has coverage to meet WP:NF, no matter how good or bad the short may be, we can have an article. And since it is possible the feature may never be made, for the released short the deciding factor is coverage. Simple. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I now change my vote to keep I saw that the article is now very good and also the short film now exists and it has over a million views. I would also like to say that the short film really is like a trailer. The article satisfies general notability guidelines. There is an article here that pretty much proves why this code 8 article is notable and that is because it has been discussed by an author in gizmodo and his name is Andrew Liptak. I would consider the linked article to be reliable because it is a secondary source. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer – The article was moved to Code 8 (by another user). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He probably should have waited, but the deed is done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: To meet WP:GNG and WP:NF, and even though not all are being used (not a mandate), we have multiple more-than-trivial coverages which address the topic directly and in detail. IE: International Business Times, Inquisitr. Entertainment Weekly, I09, Comicbook.com, MoviesRoom (Poland). Coming Soon, Crowdfund Insider, Deadline, Da Endgadet (German), Journal Du Geek (French), Observatorio Do Cinema (Portuguese), Sensacine (Spanish), Tomatazos (Spanish), and more... Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:44, 20 April 2016 (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.