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.
Delete If this were a notable topic at the current time, it would have a title something like "Pre-film financing for Dead Lies", and be cited with a list of reliable secondary sources. Instead, it is an uninteresting article about a possible future–at Wikipedia, we do WP:NOT need to postulate about the future, we can can wait for it. Suggest salting until after the film is released to prevent any further possibility of WP:NOT WP:PROMOTION and WP:N "promotional activity".
Unscintillating (
talk) 18:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
While I firmly agree that the article is premature, I do not think we can "postulate" that salting is justified or even neccesary at this time. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Are you arguing that there is no possibility that Wikipedia is currently part of a "viral marketing" promotional activity?
Unscintillating (
talk) 23:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
??? If so, then those editors will be brought to task for such actions, but I see no evidence that this particular article was contributed in bad faith. What I am "arguing" that we not ourselves personally involve in speculation, and that we deal with such instances IF or WHEN they happen using the processes in place for such. I willingly and quite often opine deletes for premature articles... just as I have done here... without making a purely speculative demand that a title must be pre-emptively salted because it might become
susceptible to promotional activity at some time in the future. Salt or not if it happens... but not before.
All of those straw men don't change the fact that there is a viral marketing campaign to fund this film, and Wikipedia currently is, ipso facto, participating in WP:N "promotional activity". Therefore, salting IMO would be a reasonable precaution.
Unscintillating (
talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Okay... back to policy. The straw man is in presupposing a future policy violation when one has not yet taken place. What happens elsewhere on the internet is what happens elsewhere on the internet. We can certainly
salt or protect any article that becomes the repeated target of inappropriate editing... but we do not salt a valid topic based upon a speculation that
it might. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.
First of all, do you think you can tone down the rhetoric? For example, claiming that I am "demanding" salting when I used the word "suggest"–and it was done in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia–does not IMO help to build consensus. Also, the words "bad faith" seemed inappropriate to me. I looked at WP:SALT, and my suggestion fits within policy. I am guessing that you believe that salting is limited to articles that have been re-created. Do you agree that the Wikipedia currently fits in as part of the marketing plan for the funding of this film?
Unscintillating (
talk) 04:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete - Hate to say it, but there is little that isn't speculation and seems to share a close connection with the writer based on the already present trivia section. Wikipedia isn't about trivia, let alone unreleased movies with a release date 2 years away. Serves more to get interest to fund the movie, at this point, like an ad.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk) 14:36, 25 July 2012 (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.