Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Well argued and reasoned discussion resulting in a rough consensus that there is just enough third party coverage to justify one of those "occasional exceptions" to WP:NFF.--Kubigula (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superman (film project)

edit
Superman (film project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF, which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks — there is no "sure thing" production." It continues "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." I cannot see, at this stage, given that all the information was copied verbatim from Superman in film#2012 reboot and sits happily on that page, any reason why this article would justify an exception to this guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to maintain stand alone page. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:50 28 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S., you forgot to add this to the AFD log. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:28 28 March 2011 (UTC)
So you elected to put "redirect" when you were worried there was a chance that the article would get deleted, then when you saw that someone else would argue the case for the page you changed it to "keep". Of course, you're entitled to change your mind, but... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the attitude, Jack. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:17 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay - Apologies if I seemed not to assume good faith. Trust you have no problem that I have restored this edit and strikethrough, so as to restore the integrity of this discussion's history. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - so you do have a problem with that - not sure how other editors feel about not preserving the history of this discussion correctly. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia:AfD#How to discuss an AfD states: "Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "▪ Delete Speedy keep"" --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments to add here (some of which I have repeated elsewhere).
1) WP:FILMPROJECT is not a guideline, but a single point of view.
2) What's the point of the specific notabilty guidelines such as WP:NFF, if they can be superseded by the general notability guidelines? The guideline at WP:NFF deals specifically with articles like this, and the creation of these pages is in direct contravention of this. Unless there is an exceptional amount of well-sourced material that cannot be housed on subject articles, where common sense dictates that it needs a breakout article, then WP:NFF should be followed. This clearly doesn't apply here as the exact same material was used.
3) The Avengers (film project) and The Hobbit (2012 film) were exceptions due to the sheer volume of information that couldn't be housed on the subject page. There is nothing exceptional here that cannot be (and indeed is not already) housed on Superman in film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Avengers (film project) had a very similar amount of coverage when it started so this too is also an exception. The topic alone has received enough coverage that no matter if the film is never produced that the development alone is notable. Also WP:NFF is not LAW that demands to be obeyed by its letter, it is more important to be intune with its spirit which we have shown can be done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the "spirit" of WP:NFF is to avoid opening the floodgates for speculative articles on future films that may or may not be made. Unfortunately the recent introduction of this "film project" concept has done just that. Editors seem to think that if they bung "(film project)" on the end of a future film, it is no longer subject to the guidelines lay down in WP:NFF. I would also suggest that if, at this stage, the film was cancelled, it would still be best placed on the Superman in film article along with all the other cancelled Superman film projects. Not sure if this is the "acid test", but it still seems the appropriate place right now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" as stated by WP:GNG is the standard for all of Wikipedia. Articles that do not meet this criteria should not be kept, so I do not worry about these "floodgates". This one particular article does however have enough significant coverage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:49 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The project is currently in production, as is other film projects The Avengers, The Hobbit. Claiming that they are exceptions is a dull way of making your argument. This provides enough coverage to maintain a stand alone article. as for WP:NFF, this is a notable film with monterous publicity. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:47 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Again to clarify the film is not in production, it is in pre-production. However the stage of development has no bearing here because the coverage already satisfies WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NFF is really quite clear on this point, and I don't see the need to split this off from Superman in film - the material hardly overwhelms that article. If consensus here is to keep, there needs to be a discussion on the status of NFF, because the section quoted by the nominator seems designed to discourage exactly this type of article. BryanG (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite apparent that WP:NFF is more restrictive than GNG. The question is whether or not it should be so restrictive that it disallows articles that would otherwise be kept per RS/WPN/WPV/GNG. The WP Aviation Accident Task Force faced a similar issue in that its article nobility guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH were seen as too lenient. In the end, WPAIRCRASH was rewritten to expound GNG and WPEVENT. I think that needs to be the case with WPNFF also. - BilCat (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has enough reliable sources to meet WPV, WPN, and GNG. - BilCat (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a "film project" title, in that it is generating plenty of independent RS press prior to the start of principal photography, at which point it can be changed to a film as Avengers recently was. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Superman film series has had a long history of not being able to get films off the ground, even when they had a cast (just look at Superman in film to see for yourself). At this time, I would revert to pointing to WP:NFF and there is nothing about this "project" that screams it needs its own page as of right now. When they actually start filming and start releasing information about filming, then we can revisit this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Superman in film. If the film for some reason gets cancelled the project will only be an anecdote and surely merged with the mother article. Which means it shouldn't have an article of its own now either, even though it's still alive. Smetanahue (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. If in the event the film is canceled there would still be enough RS coverage to warrant its own article. The article at that point would just be another article about a canceled film (which we do have).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is basically just a series of mentions of everybody who at some point has been involved in the project. If it gets cancelled I even doubt that all of it will be considered as one single project, but rather a number of failed attempts to make a Superman movie within a certain time period. For a cancelled film to be notable, I think it needs to have made a significant impact despite never being released, which I'd say is true for failed Superman movies at large, but not for this incarnation in particular. It's just anecdotes and potential background info for a film that eventually gets made. Smetanahue (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect/Merge(preferrably) I am getting less of a fan of film projects because of these AFD's . And let's face it they are a sign of desperation of one film to be a article when they are still just fine and comfortable to be a redirection to the film series article. If I was still a fan of these film projects I would have done a long time ago with what Rusted Auto Parts did. But knowing something like this (the AFD I am referring to) would happen made me snub the idea of doing so. I am sure filming is close by and I think we need to learn to be patient with that just a little bit because it's getting old. There's a reason why WP:NFF was created and if we keep on doing so we might just as well change that rule. And also I am aware of WP:Film project too because I started it but keep in mind of WP:Worm as well. Even though this film seems to qualify on being acceptable on the certain essay. Jhenderson 777 19:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I need to be clear though. An AFD is not really why I am not a big fan of it. It's more of what I said after that they are a sign of desperation.I mainly feel like a consensus needs to be done before creating these kind of articles. Because these editors that constantly AFD these kind of articles do make good points even though they normally are the minority. So we may need to hear there opinions first so we don't have these AFD's. Even though they aren't really bad they don't need be used on every single film project article that comes by. And I also suggest patience. WP:NFF shouldn't be snuffed very much. WP:GNG is not primarily referring about films. While WP:NFF does and there's a reason why it exists. Just being neutral about this just like what Wikipedia should be. :) Jhenderson 777 20:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The duplicate content in the Superman in film article can easily be replaced with a shorter summary of Superman (film project), so that's not really a reason to delete it. I haven't written a shorter summaary yet as I was promoting taking this article to AFD, and wanted to await the outcome of the AFD first. If this article is kept, then I or another user can write the short summary with a {{main}} link in the section. - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is absurd. Why delete all this information because "It doesn't meet WP:NFF. It meets several other qualities, (WP:GNG, WP:FILMPROJECT). Like what editor TriiipleThreat stated, even if the project gets cancelled (highly unlikely now) it still has enough references to maintain a stand alone page. And since this isn't a fully blown film page, it's only wise to make exception for this as we did with The Avengers and The Hobbit. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:17 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of articles does not equate to deletion of information. All of this information is already on the Superman in film page, so there is no loss there. The "Superman (film project)" page just does not need to exist. The history of Superman in film shows that these films have a hard time getting made. It took almost 2 decades for them to get Superman Returns made, and that "project" was about 5 different films at any given moment. Films that had scripts, casts, directors, etc and still did not get made. Given the history of the character, there is no reason to say that this someone meets the "exception" rule that recent projects like The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, or The Hobbit were granted. That, and the fact that there really is not that much information. There is a lot of initial castings, and some basic discussions of trying to get the film off the ground, that's it. Everything else is rumor. Not really screaming, "I need a page to myself". The only reason I'm not saying "redirect" is because "Superman (film project)" is not a viable search option for the average reader. BTW, people keep saying "it meets the GNG", but if you read the GNG carefully, it also says: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." - Right now, we're not actually getting substantial information. In addition, just because a topic may meet the GNG, does not mean that it automatically requires an article to itself. It's also about the amount of information being presented.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
To expand on your points, everyone keeps waving WP:GNG about, but it also states: "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." I would suspect that when WP:NFF was written, editors looked at this carefully, and discussed that films which had not entered production were not suitable for a stand-alone article.
WP:CRYSTAL states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As WP:NFF points out, "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." WP:CRYSTAL also goes on to give an example of tropical storms: ""Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not [encyclopedic], even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." I think the same logic can be applied to future films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "since this isn't a fully blown film page, it's only wise to make exception"? It is an article about a film that has yet to enter production. Therefore a film page, and should be under the same scrutiny as anything else. I don't quite see your logic that we should be more lenient because it hasn't entered production. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and with respect to the editor(s) involved, WP:FILMPROJECT is not a guideline, merely the view of a handful of editors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting what film project articles really are. They are NOT articles about future films or even future events. They are article about the development of a planned film. They do not deal with future occurrences but deal with things that have already come to pass. These articles are carefully worded to to reflect this. As a result WP:CRYSTAL and to a lesser extent WP:NFF are not applicable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like carefully trying to circumvent the guidelines in place in order to create an article. Let's face it this IS an article about a future film and it IS an article about a future event. And, in fact, if it is about "the development of a future film" rather than these two, then this particular article should definitely be deleted, as, unlike previous "film projects" like The Hobbit (for which I can understand the necessity of a stand-alone page, due to the sheer depth of coverage) there has been no development to speak of. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly as I stated but you are partially correct. Film projects articles were conceived with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF at heart so that they would not intrude on either of them. To understand this you should go back read the AfD were they originated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film). Furthermore this original film project could also have been housed at Avengers (comics) in other media but that article like this one fulfilled all the requirements set by WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to the article, development of this particular project has been underway for over two years. There is an abundance of reliable sources on the subject. If the article fails to express this concern then there is no reason to think that it cannot be fixed by normal editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In development" can mean anything though (or nothing). I'm more and more convinced that WP:NFF took into account WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL when the guideline was written. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a film project page. They have been appearing lately after the article were sourced enough to have a stand alone article. Piece the puzzle from here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:52 29 March 2011 (UTC)
These so-called "film project" pages are a new phenomenon. This is probably only the fifth or sixth of its kind, and so far they seem to have only been left to exist after close scrutiny in exceptional cases. My opinion (and I am not alone) is that this particular article does not pass this close scrutiny against the guidelines, and should not exist outside of (in this case) the Superman in film page. There are other editors who disagree with this. This is fine. This is the spirit of Wikipedia. I think we have brought this to AfD as a "test case" to see whether more clarity is needed in the guidelines and to reach a consensus as this issue comes up everytime one of these "film project" pages appears. Please do not be so discourteous as your reply above and suggest I "piece the puzzle from here". You have yet to produce a convincing argument for your view, which, you changed to and from "redirect" after requesting that this was not brought to AfD as you didn't want to risk deletion of the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Threat, but to me titling an article "film project" instead of "film" is nothing more than a disguise of what it actually is...which is an article about a future film. Call it what you want, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....it's a duck. The reality is, there is no guarantee that this "project" will be anything other than that at this moment. Nothing in the history suggests that (actually, the history suggests quite the opposite). Based on WP:SIZE, there isn't this grand amount of content that cannot possibly be housed at Superman in film - already sits nicely there. That could even be trimmed because, a part from the ruling about making a film as soon as possible...which itself isn't a guarantee since they had 2 years to get this film made and the time is running out, the stuff about the two families retaining the comic book rights and the S-shield has nothing to do with this film unless explicitely stated. So that can be removed. In addition, the stuff about Superman (1978) inspiring Christopher Nolan isn't directly related to this film either. It's anecdotal, nothing more. As is the Ben Affleck stuff. It was "rumored" that he was considered for directing, not confirmed. Anyone can start a rumor. That shouldn't even be in the article. So, there really isn't anything here but some press releases on casting and potential start dates. We know nothing about the story, nothing of real substance. This does not need a "film project" tag at this time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My argument isn't convincing to you because you keep changing yours. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:57 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you seem to be singling me out, but my point of view on this is clear and has remained consistent. You can hardly say that I "keep changing" my argument (which you have also called "dull"). I would however, bring your attention to this edit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is the amount of notable and verifiable reliable sources on this project is extensive and I am positive that the article as is does not incorporate all of them. Whatever problems the article has can be fixed by normal editing and does not meet any of Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. In fact the film not need be produced, if production was halted or canceled it would only create even bigger onslaught of media coverage. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Circular I know, but how about "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" as a reason for deletion? Isn't WP:NFF a "relevant notability guideline"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Threat, you cannot make assumptions like. I could easily state the alternative, that if the project was cancelled tomorrow no one would care after tomorrow and there would not be any "media onslaught". There's hardly been a "media onslaught" since the film was announced, even since Henry Cavill was announced as Superman. The GNG says "significant coverage" and then clarifies "not simply news reports". Where is the significant coverage of this film? There isn't any. What we have are announcements for people involved and then random backstories about these people that are not a direct relation to the film itself. So, how does that meet the significant coverage aspect of the GNG? It doesn't. Having "multiple" sources does not equate to significant coverage. The GNG says that as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nole, you are misrepresenting WP:GNG, which makes no mention of news reports. I assume you are referring to WP:EVENT which is not applicable here since we are not dealing with an event. As far as significant coverage is concerned they are easily available over the internet and in-print magazines and newspapers, they do exist. Again whatever faults the article currently has can fixed and the article expanded by normal editing, see WP:ATD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The basic notability guideline covers events (scroll down), and a film is considered an "event", just as much as a sports game is considered an "event". You have not shown significant coverage. Even doing a Google search does not show significant coverage. Again, you cannot misconstrue "significant coverage" with "multiple sources", especially when I just did a quick check of two random sources and upon reading found that they were either from unreliable sources, or completely misrepresented from the original source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also includes a link: "For notability guidelines for specific kinds of articles, see Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines". As this is a "specific kind of article", I really don't think WP:NF can be dismissed in favour of WP:GNG as casually as some editors seem to want to do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that's too necessary because it's already userfied by a user who really wanted to be a part of this. Jhenderson 777 15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that existed, which is why I feel Incubation > userfication.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Incubation > userfication. The user moved the redirection there after trying to create a article but instead User:-5- gets it back as a redirection because of WP:NFF. So after noticing I helped clean up a little. And I am sure it needs even more cleanup on the way. Jhenderson 777 15:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and/or even Incubate for a VERY brief time and continue work. Yes, I read that it is userfied... but the incubator is locatable and editable by many contributors, and a userspace does not have the same visibility to invite cooperative improvements.) Article title definitely needs to be changed to reflect that the Superman (film project) has its title confirmed as Superman: Man Of Steel. Further, the article should also be expanded and sourced to show that in order to "intentionally disguise the project during the process of filming", production used the fake "working title" of Autumn Frost ( [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and many, many more,[12] from the early rumors and guesses of 2000 until the growing coverage and confirmations of 2011.) The nominator wrote earlier that he suggests the "spirit" of WP:NFF was to avoid "opening the floodgates" on speculative articles on future films. This is a valid concern... but if an editor were to simply "bung" the words "film project" onto an article, that article will better darn sure have to fly over the bar of the GNG, or suffer the fate of being axed just as might any article that failed to show notability. And I do agree that produced or not, this topic does indeed deserve being metioned in the rather large Superman in film article... but there is simply two much decently sourced content to foist this one into the SiF article without drastic elimination of content to our reader's deficit Several things need be considered: 1. The instruction of guideline is that a topic must be considered "worthy of notice" through having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", 2. The persistance of coverage over many years meets that criteria. 3. The instruction of policy is that it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. 4. The instruction at WP:NFF states "should not", as a caution... not "must not" as if an ironclad rule. 5. All guidelines are headed with the caveat "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply, and 6. The topic does not fail policy. My opinion and conclusions, after reading the current article and reviewing its current sources, and after reviewing the many more available that have not (yet) been used to further expand this article in Wikipedia's goal to increase a reader's understanding of the topic, are that A. No "floodgate" has been opened, B. what has been upheld here is that WP:NFF holds independent articles whose topic is an unmade film to a far higher standard than does the governing WP:NF and WP:N, C. this topic meets those far higher standards, and D. this one has been amply qualified to be one of those VERY rare exceptions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's the two reason's why I am not fully ok with this. One labeling it as film project is quite cheesy and never really qualifies as the best of a common name. Nobody will search for a title like that and it will make a useless redirection title as well when it's not a film project anymore. I am not sure a common reader will look so highly on that kind of title. Second it looks just as nice as a section and no rules are being broken whatsoever so we don't need to keep debating guidelines whatsoever. I am ok with The Dark Knight Rises because at least we got the same name but to do this on some film that doesn't even have a official title name yet makes me say can't we be patient. Yes it has sources to qualify as a article but that doesn't mean it needs to be split just yet if it's just as nice looking as a section. But the article will be nice though with good editors watching it I have no doubt about that. We just need boundaries on this though. When splitting it is sometimes suggestive to do a consensus on it per WP:Split and AFD's would have been less likely. Jhenderson 777 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the title "Superman (film project)" was a measure that at best merited discussion on the article's talk page, but not an AFD on what is on an article on a notable topic. But it's here now, and even in the last few hours more sources have come forward confirming the film's title as "Superman: Man Of Steel. I have just modified the lede accordingly based upon newer sources.[13] The article is STILL not calling it a film... and stresses in the lede that the topic is a pre-production project (without actually using that word). Still incubatable, but for a very short time as even more comes forward worth sharing with our readers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further thoughts. I can see that we could be getting to the stage where it could be argued that common sense dictates that this would be an exception to the WP:NFF. But in circumstances like this consensus for the split should have been sought beforehand on the talk page at Superman in film. Which, actually, is what I tried to do in the first place before it was suggested to bring it to AfD. As we seem to be arguing a point of technicality, I don't think this AfD will reach a clear consensus. One thing I would like to say, is that if it is deemed that there is a case for a breakout article, why are we treating these articles as anything other than a "film" page - I think these "film project" style articles are misleading. If consensus is that in spite of WP:NFF this article should exist, then it is still an article on a film, albeit not as far advanced in the production process as others. It might be a good idea to update WP:NFF with guidelines for these situations, making reference to the fact that clear consensus should be sought first. I tried to do this by reverting this page to a redirect, and requesting discussion, but my actions were overruled. Any thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of "(film project)" in some article titles was created after some debate as a means to differentiate a title from a an article by the same name. Like The Hobbit (film project) was a response to disambig from The Hobbit. If a name is unknown, it would be pretty much too soon for an actual article expect under extraordinary circumstances. In this case, Superman (film project) was indeed clumsy, even though a good faith effort to disambig from Superman, which is why a name change to Superman: Man Of Steel would be proper now that we have verification, and why I modified the article lede to indicate this.[14] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article clearly has enough reliable sources to meet any WP:V, WPN, or GNG concerns. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per NFF. The ravenous appetites of the Hollywood bullshit machine makes sure that any time two people meet in an expensive restaurant to talk about making Little Bunny Foo-Foo: The Fieldmice Strike Back, there will be a gazillion articles about it in gossip magazines and the trades. NFF is there for a reason: to make sure that until the movie actually starts shooting, Wikipedia will not be cluttered with these rumor thingies. The FILMPROJECT folks seem to be trying to subvert this sound attitude on the grounds that possible movies which fanboys are drooling over should have articles even if they never happen. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite harsh, but i respect your opinion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:43 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Harsh indeed (chuckle), but we must admire the least respect the intensity with which it is offered. While we are not discussing the wishes of "drooling fanboys", we are discussing how NFF was meant to properly prevent a flood of speculative articles on topics that did not yet have notability, and discussing a reasonable (and rare) exception to NFF for a demonstrably notable topic. While ANY article could be trimmed to three or four sentences and then stuffed somwhere else, such practice does not serve to increase a reader's understanding of the topic. Stated elsewhere but worth bringing here are several givens (that for clarity I would love to see incorporated into WP:NFF in order to address this issue):
  1. Guideline indicates any topic may be determined as being "worthy of notice" by it meeting general notability through it having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
  2. Policy allows that it "is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
  3. Very, VERY rare exceptions to guideline WP:NFF are allowable IF the coverage of the future film is enduring and persistant in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with "Fanboys" and conflict with WP:NOTNEWS), AND if there is too much verifiable information in an article whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur", to be reasonably placed anywhere else.
That said, and as we look at these on a case-by-case basis, had this simply been an unexpanded stub, a proper merge and redirect would have served. Had it only been "fanboy" gossip, an outright deletion would have been in order. But neither case bears. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will note for the record that I am the father of an otaku, the husband of a woman who has attended MediaWest for over 30 years now, and a person who has even committed fan fiction myself; so I can make fanboy jokes, like redneck jokes, because I'm talking about me and mine. That said: film project articles about films that may or may not be made, are to me prime examples of the severe recentist bias which the entire Wikipedia project displays. That which is recent and American or British, no matter how ephemeral, gets an article, because you can find stories about it in gossip magazines and the like; meanwhile, entire national legislatures are neglected because you can't find something about them in a five-second Google search for English-language sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted: You are qualified to colorfully joke about "fanboys". And while myself aware of a "recentism" tendency (usully addressed soundly by WP:NOTNEWS), I made the comment I did to address that notability is to be considered through significant coverage in reliable sources over a many-years period, and not through last week's blurb on a fan page or gossip mag. If such were the only sources available, I would quite agree that we'd have failure of the GNG and no need to consider an exception to NFF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I update you that the once was userspace draft is now a article incubator (even though the favor seems to be a keep anyways) The incubator is done in film style so I suppose it can be used when it's a film. Jhenderson 777 15:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the incubator, that fomat is fine... simply unsuitable in mainspace until the film IS a film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 3 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Superman_(film_project)&oldid=1144332266"