428:
is absolutely right; the guidelines explicitly say that "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", no matter how high-profile. This film has not commenced principal photography; ergo, it should not have its own
597:
film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines." (Boldfacing in both cases as in the original article.) I don't see how it can get much clearer than that. If you want to argue that this particular film is a special case for some
304:
I'm not going on "blind faith", I'm going off of the sources that this article provides. According to the sources, the movie IS being made. According to you, it **might** not be. That's practically the definition of crystalballing.
245:- Actually yes, having sources IS enough. Just because filming hasn't begun doesn't mean the film won't happen. You say "films get canceled all the time", but as of now, this one hasn't been. Saying that it "might" get canceled is
332:
According to the scotlandonsunday story as linked by T-rex above, "The director and producers of the movie, which is due to start filming in the spring, arrive in
Scotland tomorrow to examine potential locations."
127:
158:
207:
Having sources is not enough - neither of those states that filming has begun. Projects get cancelled at the last minute all of the time; hence the reason for
589:
have their own articles....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."
660:, and in fact it's explicitly mentioned as an option, and this film is notable enough to warrant it. Amending my "delete" vote above to "redirect". --
94:
89:
98:
81:
626:
17:
282:
And given the way the film industry works, I would argue the opposite - that blind faith that this will be made is crystalballing.
517:
for now - redirecting rather than deleting will make it easier to revive the article once sources satisfying WP:NFF are found. -
630:
585:
explicitly says that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should
187:
364:
315:
287:
269:
216:
143:
710:
36:
191:
359:. It goes into detail about why this guideline exists, and why high-profile releases are not exempt from it. Thanks,
692:
669:
651:
611:
573:
526:
505:
480:
463:
442:
399:
368:
346:
323:
291:
277:
233:
220:
202:
177:
147:
63:
646:
568:
552:
85:
709:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
425:
360:
283:
212:
139:
51:. It's on the fence between redirect/keep and delete, so I'm choosing redirect as the less restrictive option.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
459:
476:
501:
342:
173:
77:
69:
639:
561:
545:
657:
590:
246:
522:
395:
138:. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun.
665:
607:
472:
438:
312:
266:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
493:
334:
165:
680:
599:
582:
540:
489:
451:
421:
387:
356:
208:
135:
634:
625:. Forget the film... the article itself has notability because of content and context per
256:
253:
250:
230:
199:
471:
per NFF, and the way it is written is almost trying to justify keeping it with caveats.
518:
391:
54:
536:
688:
661:
603:
434:
417:
306:
260:
115:
455:
602:
applies regardless of any other notability criteria of the film in question. --
226:
195:
622:
514:
430:
413:
47:
656:
Actually, I agree with the redirection; that's certainly not forbidden by
684:
598:
reason, you can try to do so, but the guidelines seem very explicit that
355:
Rwiggum, I would advise you to read, very carefully, the full text of
390:
guideline. I don't see a reason to make an exception for this one.
225:
I'm aware of NFF, but do not feel that it applies in this case --
703:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
249:
The article has plenty of sources, plus is starring three
122:
111:
107:
103:
581:: Not according to existing guidelines it doesn't.
429:
article until it does. The film is mentioned under
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
713:). No further edits should be made to this page.
186:- there are significant sources for this film
416:. I was strongly leaning toward siding with
8:
159:list of Film-related deletion discussions
433:, and for now that's probably enough. --
157:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
559:Struck vote. Will study and return.
386:. Seems to be squarely within the
24:
637:... and each day something more.
136:future film notability guidelines
420:on this one...until I read the
1:
693:00:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
670:18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
652:05:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
612:23:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
574:02:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
557:23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
527:20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
506:17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
481:14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
464:14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
443:07:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
400:07:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
369:05:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
347:04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
324:03:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
292:01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
278:01:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
234:03:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
221:01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
203:00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
178:04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
148:22:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
64:19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
730:
706:Please do not modify it.
631:ContactMusic.com 6/26/08
32:Please do not modify it.
78:King Lear (2009 film)
70:King Lear (2009 film)
627:Cinematica, 5/20/08
426:Girolamo Savonarola
361:Girolamo Savonarola
284:Girolamo Savonarola
213:Girolamo Savonarola
140:Girolamo Savonarola
44:The result was
635:Javno.com 6/30/08
180:
162:
134:Apparently fails
62:
721:
708:
642:
564:
548:
499:
340:
309:
263:
192:scotlandonsunday
171:
163:
153:
125:
119:
101:
61:
59:
52:
34:
729:
728:
724:
723:
722:
720:
719:
718:
717:
711:deletion review
704:
640:
562:
546:
494:
335:
320:
307:
274:
261:
188:telegraph.co.uk
166:
121:
92:
76:
73:
55:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
727:
725:
716:
715:
698:
696:
695:
674:
673:
672:
616:
615:
614:
529:
508:
483:
466:
445:
402:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
350:
349:
327:
326:
316:
297:
296:
295:
294:
270:
247:crystalballing
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
181:
132:
131:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
726:
714:
712:
707:
701:
700:
699:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
654:
653:
650:
649:
648:
644:
643:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
576:
575:
572:
571:
570:
566:
565:
558:
556:
555:
554:
550:
549:
542:
538:
534:
530:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
509:
507:
504:
503:
500:
497:
491:
487:
484:
482:
478:
474:
470:
467:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
444:
440:
436:
432:
427:
424:guidelines.
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
407:
403:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
381:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
348:
345:
344:
341:
338:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
321:
319:
313:
310:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
275:
273:
267:
264:
258:
255:
252:
248:
244:
241:
235:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
205:
204:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
175:
172:
169:
160:
156:
152:
151:
150:
149:
145:
141:
137:
129:
124:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
58:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
705:
702:
697:
676:
647:
645:
638:
618:
594:
586:
578:
569:
567:
560:
553:
551:
544:
532:
531:
510:
502:
495:
485:
473:Darrenhusted
468:
447:
409:
405:
404:
383:
343:
336:
317:
271:
242:
183:
174:
167:
154:
133:
56:
46:redirect to
45:
43:
31:
28:
593:says that "
658:WP:FUTFILM
591:WP:FUTFILM
57:Sandstein
623:King Lear
519:Malkinann
515:King Lear
431:King Lear
414:King Lear
392:AndyJones
184:Weak keep
48:King Lear
641:Schmidt,
619:Redirect
563:Schmidt,
547:Schmidt,
511:Redirect
410:Redirect
128:View log
662:Smeazel
604:Smeazel
579:Comment
539:trumps
435:Smeazel
418:Rwiggum
318:Contrib
308:Rwiggum
272:Contrib
262:Rwiggum
254:notable
95:protect
90:history
681:WP:NFF
677:Delete
600:WP:NFF
583:WP:NFF
541:WP:NFF
490:WP:NFF
486:Delete
469:Delete
456:Stifle
452:WP:NFF
448:Delete
422:WP:NFF
406:Delete
388:WP:NFF
384:Delete
357:WP:NFF
257:actors
209:WP:NFF
123:delete
99:delete
498:smith
496:Cliff
339:smith
337:Cliff
170:smith
168:Cliff
126:) – (
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
689:talk
679:per
666:talk
608:talk
537:WP:N
533:Keep
523:talk
488:per
477:talk
460:talk
450:per
439:talk
396:talk
365:talk
288:talk
251:very
243:Keep
217:talk
190:and
155:Note
144:talk
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
685:JJL
621:to
595:All
587:not
513:to
412:to
231:rex
200:rex
161:.
691:)
683:.
668:)
633:,
629:,
610:)
543:.
535:.
525:)
492:.
479:)
462:)
454:.
441:)
398:)
367:)
322:)
290:)
276:)
259:.
219:)
211:.
194:--
146:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
687:(
664:(
606:(
521:(
475:(
458:(
437:(
394:(
363:(
314:/
311:(
286:(
268:/
265:(
229:-
227:T
215:(
198:-
196:T
164:—
142:(
130:)
120:(
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.