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. Closing discussion. Nominator has withdrawn per improvements and sources and there are no arguments for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Last Night (2014 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)

I came across this as a PROD and seeing as it didn't pass WP:NFF at that point in time, I redirected it to Sexual Perversity in Chicago#Film adaptations since it was simply WP:TOOSOON for this to pass notability guidelines. The film doesn't release until next year and all of the coverage so far has been "so and so is starring in this film" type of coverage. Nothing that would show that the film passes the very strict standards for unreleased films. I've tried redirecting this three times, giving the editor several warnings that this didn't pass notability guidelines. Since they seem to be adamant about this remaining an article, I'm taking it to AfD to ensure that this doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the same editor has tried to create this through AfC and has been declined twice. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also note that the same editor has deleted the passage I put in the article for Sexual Perversity in Chicago for this film, possibly in an attempt to dissuade any further attempts to redirect. I've left messages for the editor, but with zero response from him or her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PRODder (PROD). While I would prefer a delete, I would support a consensus to redirect-and-protect to Sexual Perversity in Chicago#Film adaptations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update There are now more references and this article may meet WP:GNG. I am not familiar enough with film-related deletion debates to determine if the listed coverage is considered significant by Wikipedia standards. Changing from "delete" to "defer to history of similar discussions where there was similar coverage." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now as above to Sexual Perversity in Chicago#Film adaptations. As the film has been receiving coverage, and IS in post-production an undeletion/recreation is likely to be expected soon enough that a salting should be unneccessary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Struck my opinion. See below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think I have seen the articles in pre-production and filming status. This film is in post-production state and can be kept at Wikipedia according to the policies. And you know this better than me.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 04:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While an article in "post" is more likely to have received significant coverage than a similarly-well-known/similarly-promoted movie in the pre-production or filming stage would, there are no doubt films that get widely covered within 24 hours of the announcement of the plans for the film. On the flip side, there are many films that actually exist which are not notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The biggie here is that the film's production would have to have received a lot of in-depth coverage, which this film hasn't. Most of what we have is so insanely light that it wouldn't really keep the film if, by some chance, the film were to release and receive zero coverage after that fact. It might seem unlikely that it wouldn't receive any further coverage, but it's not impossible and there have been multiple films in similar circumstances that were either pushed back even farther (and gotten no additional in-depth coverage) or released with no actual other coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the notability guidelines for future films because it is verifiable that production has taken place and per the general notability guidelines since there was coverage in both Variety and The Hollywood Reporter about this film in development. (Also found this from Toronto Sun in my research.) Considering the director and the cast, I find it highly unlikely that this film will not be reviewed. Its notability will only be further reinforced as the release date gets closer. Tokyogirl79, my experience with film coverage is that there is generally a lot of attention at the start (especially from the trade papers I mentioned) due to big names being involved, and there is a second surge of coverage right around the time of the film's release. In between, circumstances will vary. Subject matter with fan bases (e.g., comic book films) will be heavily covered throughout its whole production. If a film is shot somewhere relatively unusual (e.g., Shreveport, Louisiana), there tends to be local coverage to draw upon. However, there is a subset of films that go through production without much attention, but I think that the early (and especially repeated) coverage from the trade papers make it highly likely that this is a film that will get attention upon arrival. Is there a chance that it won't ever be released? Yes, but for films that have entered production, the odds of that are very, very small. In my opinion, it's not enough to delete this article which, considering these circumstances, is not detrimental to have on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added a "Production" section using the aforementioned trade papers. I think that there is more substance than just who appears in the film, even though I think even that would be enough in such an article. Even a cast list is useful in terms of navigating Wikipedia instead of IMDb or other websites; readers who hear about the film can come here and then look at the actors' articles. In any case, I've added a bit about development history (personally find it neat that it was in development since Jan. '11) and that casting began before a director was found. Not to mention filming at Dodger Stadium. Sorry to add on, I just think this is a clear-cut case and wanted to articulate and demonstrate why. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per major improvements and in agreeing with Erik. GNG is now met for a completed film. Was happy to strike my earlier opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing nom. I'm not too proud to admit that I was wrong, so can someone close this up? I didn't see the sources when I'd searched and I'd been pretty certain that this was just one of many articles added by a green editor with unreliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closeup I think it is better to close it up for now...after agreeing of Tokyogirl79.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 06:20, 8 May 2013 (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.