Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 and redirect to Alien (franchise)#Alien Prequel. lifebaka++ 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prometheus (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Film has not yet entered production. Too soon for a page likely to be littered with rumour and speculation. magnius (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Although the film is in the future, and could even be potentially cancelled, it's will be filmed by a major film studio by a major director, and seems to be a lock to be produced. I would definitely remove all rumors in the article though.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the film is cancelled, THEN delete the page? This, to me, makes more sense. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the film is made, THEN create the page. This, to me, makes the most sense. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the film is cancelled, THEN delete the page? This, to me, makes more sense. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now to Alien (franchise)#Alien Prequel where this topic is already far better covered and better sourced. As we do not treat "film projects" as films until principle filming actually begins, we might allow a return only if/when filming begins OR when coverage increases to the point where the topic of the project might merit an independent article as one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. This project has generated enough buzz that it has acquired a certain notability, but the Alien (franchise) already provides enough coverage for now.—RJH (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep there are 3 sources that is enough for notabilityThisbites (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and no. While WP:NFF does allow that occasional exceptions might occur, the topic is curently far better covered and sourced at Alien (franchise)#Alien Prequel. If the nominated article were far more comprehensive, it might merit independence... but it currently is not.. and so does not... for now. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: The article is in its embryonic stage and will expand as the film goes into production and more details are released. I never understand the willingness to delete pages which are obviously of interest to the public in general, especially with a franchise such as that of Alien. As long as there are references to any news releases and the quality maintained, their is no reasoning for getting rid of the article. If the there is a redirect, any fears of quality will just be much of an issue on that page, so that point has no merit. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With the greatest of respect, and though I do agree that as the film approaches production coveage will quite likley increase, the topic of the prequel IS currently far better covered over at Alien (franchise)#Alien Prequel, and it is only in very rare cases that an unmade film is allowed to have its own seperate article. As you do wish to improve this one as more comes forward, why not simply request of the closer that the current one be userfied to you in a workspace at User:Anthony of the Desert/Prometheus (film) so that it can be expanded and better sourced. I would be glad to advise on how to prepare the article for an eventual return to mainspace. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & redirect the title to Alien (franchise)#Alien Prequel, per WP:NFF & the fact that the topic is already better covered there. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Film project by major director. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not address the concerns of the nomination, nor is notability inherited from the director. The director being highly notable is an indicator that the topic may receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but as this is a future film that has not yet even begun filming (and appears to still be in the embryonic stages), comprehensive coverage does not yet exist. Thus far the source coverage that has popped up is mostly of the bottom-of-the-barrel internet rumor variety. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really can't understand the problem with this article - when the film does enter production, it almost certainly will receive significant coverage, so if we delete it now, it will very likely be recreated again eventually. What, then, is the point of deletion? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The film may enter production, it may not. It hasn't yet. WP:NFF exists primarily because so many film projects never see completion (I believe, in fact, that more films die in the idea stages than actually get made). WP:V and WP:N rely on the topic already having received significant coverage, not on the assumption that it may receive such coverage at some unknown point in the future. Wikipedia isn't the news, so it isn't really within our scope to cover topics that might be notable at some point in the future. If the film actually gets made, significant coverage will probably appear and yes, at that point we'll want an article on it. But that's no reason for keeping it around in the hope that it actually gets made. The point of deletion is to remove an article that is guaranteed to be full of rumor and speculation as, by its nature, it is about an item that does not yet exist and may never come to exist. Deletion now is not an impediment to a new article being created in the future if, in fact, the film comes to fruition, especially given that the project is already covered more thoroughly in one of our other articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for directing me to the guideline, however, there is at least one reason for keeping the article for now - it would save anyone the trouble of having to recreate it from scratch. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a very weak reason. It's a stub: The thing is 9 sentences, an IMDb link, and a navbox. Since most of it is speculative, future-tense material, it'd wind up totally rewritten anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any of the material there is potentially helpful to future editors, including the IMDb link. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, all of the material is already presented better at Alien (franchise)#Alien Prequel, so nothing useful to future editors is lost if we redirect this there. An IMDb link takes literally seconds to find. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be true if you're already familiar with IMDb, but not everyone is. Frankly, the basis of my disagreement with you here is that I don't agree with the WP:NFF guideline; it seems to me always better to keep an article on projects like this if there's a reasonable chance they will be significantly covered in future. I don't expect my saying that to alter the outcome of this AfD, but I will say it for the record. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to be familiar at all with IMDb. You literally just go to imdb.com and type "prometheus" in the search box, just like you would at Google or any other searchable website (including Wikipedia). Anyhoo...I think we just have fundamental differences of opinion here regarding articles on future topics. You think we should keep such articles on the possibility of their future coverage, while I take the opposite tack: I believe that our standards require us to judge article topics based on existing coverage, not on uncertain future coverage. With a few notable exceptions (Chinese Democracy had a well-written and well-sourced article well before its release, having been in production & thoroughly reported on for 13 years...but again, the coverage already existed), this weeds out most articles about future films/albums/games that have not yet begun principal development and about which we inevitably wind up reporting mostly on rumors and speculation. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be true if you're already familiar with IMDb, but not everyone is. Frankly, the basis of my disagreement with you here is that I don't agree with the WP:NFF guideline; it seems to me always better to keep an article on projects like this if there's a reasonable chance they will be significantly covered in future. I don't expect my saying that to alter the outcome of this AfD, but I will say it for the record. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, all of the material is already presented better at Alien (franchise)#Alien Prequel, so nothing useful to future editors is lost if we redirect this there. An IMDb link takes literally seconds to find. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any of the material there is potentially helpful to future editors, including the IMDb link. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a very weak reason. It's a stub: The thing is 9 sentences, an IMDb link, and a navbox. Since most of it is speculative, future-tense material, it'd wind up totally rewritten anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for directing me to the guideline, however, there is at least one reason for keeping the article for now - it would save anyone the trouble of having to recreate it from scratch. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The film may enter production, it may not. It hasn't yet. WP:NFF exists primarily because so many film projects never see completion (I believe, in fact, that more films die in the idea stages than actually get made). WP:V and WP:N rely on the topic already having received significant coverage, not on the assumption that it may receive such coverage at some unknown point in the future. Wikipedia isn't the news, so it isn't really within our scope to cover topics that might be notable at some point in the future. If the film actually gets made, significant coverage will probably appear and yes, at that point we'll want an article on it. But that's no reason for keeping it around in the hope that it actually gets made. The point of deletion is to remove an article that is guaranteed to be full of rumor and speculation as, by its nature, it is about an item that does not yet exist and may never come to exist. Deletion now is not an impediment to a new article being created in the future if, in fact, the film comes to fruition, especially given that the project is already covered more thoroughly in one of our other articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really can't understand the problem with this article - when the film does enter production, it almost certainly will receive significant coverage, so if we delete it now, it will very likely be recreated again eventually. What, then, is the point of deletion? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not address the concerns of the nomination, nor is notability inherited from the director. The director being highly notable is an indicator that the topic may receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but as this is a future film that has not yet even begun filming (and appears to still be in the embryonic stages), comprehensive coverage does not yet exist. Thus far the source coverage that has popped up is mostly of the bottom-of-the-barrel internet rumor variety. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Sources look ok so its not crystal ball, but still a bit too sketchy. Szzuk (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL isn't the central issue here. It's WP:NFF and the fact that the topic is already better covered at Alien (franchise)#Alien Prequel. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and mergefrom Alien_(franchise)#Alien_Prequel. I see notability and RS to support the article's existance. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to have sufficient prominent coverage to satisfy the GNG and justify an exception to the SNG. Since the project is no longer categorized as a prequel to Alien, the section there should be truncated, with relevant material merged into this article. Obviously standard deletin is inappropriate; the choices should be limited to keep andmerge/redirect. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 7 February 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.