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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 3D (film)[edit]

Genesis 3D (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)

Completely based upon sources connected with the production with no reliable third-party sources establishing notability. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  21:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

akas:

(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)

(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)

alts:

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete per being TOO SOON. While searches show the topic can actually be set with proper sources,[1][2][3] we have no confirmation of release, and most of the better available sources appear to be three-years-old. I found no new news. We might allow the article to be recreated and properly sourced when we have confirmation of release AND/OR sources to meet WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to newest news (one is even referenced) on the development of the film showing it to be more than 90% completed and is extremely likely to be given a release date very soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.25.173 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but that's not the way it works here. Read WP:NFF. If filming can be be confirmed as under way, we need a number of independent sources which can be determined as reliable per the guides which speak in some detail about the film and its production. Sorry, but none of these qualify. Please go read WP:NYF Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with above. This film is even an "independent" film itself and as far as I'm concerned the already provided sources are reliable, and if not enough, of course one could go search the web for more. This film is evidently being just finished and soon about to be launched, and so indeed a release date is also soon to be reported. I consider this whole issue to be ridiculous and unnecessary (to temporarily remove the article for a film that's just being completed only to add the article again soon - and even if it were to be cancelled, which is very unlikely at this point, the article could still remain because it is common for Wikipedia to have articles on cancelled projects too, and that makes this whole issue even more strange). It is ridiculous in its purest sense. TurokSwe (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete for lack of notability and for failing GNG and NFILMS. Whatever it will be released in months, in years or maybe never is the minor issue here compared to the lack of reliable coverage. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", and this is not the case. Considering the very little interest the film production raised in the last two years, even when released the film would very likely fail WP:NFILMS, so the argument "producer says it's 90% completed!" carries no weight. Cavarrone 01:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best and draft & userfy later if needed as this article is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 16 February 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.