760:. Asked to return and voice an opinion, I believe the changes made to the article and the sources linked in my comment above are sufficient to demonstrate the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. I don't see a need for the article to be moved out of mainspace in order to be expanded before being moved back. All articles exist in mainspace as unfinished; some just need more work than others. --
619:, even without there actually being a film (yet). In such cases the article should not use film article templates, but instead be treated as "film projects" and be presented then as non-film but film-related articles." There are plenty of alternate provisions to simply deleting the article, which should be explored as opposed to its complete erasure.
373:
I provided the sources linked above as reference, not because I intended to weigh in on this discussion. But sure... The essay you've linked to as your deletion rational states "A film could merit an article in
Knowledge if it meets any of the various notability criteria as set out by guidelines at
665:
giving us an indicator that any pre-2013 news about Selick's relationship and Disney and this then-untitled project will not be under its current "firm title". Earlier references do exist if one searches for "Henry Selick's untitled stop motion feature". From 2010: Selick is hired by
206:. All coverage I can find is from February, when it was announced that he'd be pushing ahead without Disney's help. I found no coverage prior to this announcement, and none since. Just a brief rush of announcements over the course of two days.
687:
663:"Disney recently dumped his latest film project, leaving it homeless and at one point officially dead in the water. But now it’s picked up a firm title (The Shadow King), a new producer, a new partner, and some new hope."
614:
says "There are circumstances where reliable sources discuss an anticipated event, such as a proposed film, with enough depth and persistence so that discussion of the topic itself might meet notability through the
172:
300:
550:. In the incubator it can be expanded and sourced until ready for a return to mainspace. While this topic does not quite have the persistent and in-depth coverage to merit being an
705:
in multiple sources then and now make the project notable enough for inclusion somewhere even if not in separate article. It should certainly be spoken of in more detail at the
637:
You don't think it's a problem that we know literally only one thing about this film? Or that literally 100% of the coverage came in a two day span? All we know is that it
425:
Err, excuse me TPH, but this is not ONE EVENT for those who look, as Disney's interest in The Shadow King can be traced back many years, despite the more recent coverage.
166:
125:
357:
Those are still from the same 3-day range, and all of them essentially say the same thing: that Selick will continue to make the movie without Disney's help.
669:
Easily found in a quick look are sources speaking about his "untitled project", we have 2012 speaking in detail about the untitled project being cancelled:
316:
610:
director. The fact he's still going ahead with the film despite its abandonment by Disney represents a pivotal movmement in his career. Part of the
264:
132:
602:
shows "The film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," thereby warranting inclusion.
504:: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". --
678:
So with respects, it is incorrect to imply that "literally 100% of the coverage" is found only in a "two day span." We look further and
98:
93:
670:
102:
674:
85:
672:
17:
187:
667:
154:
662:
676:
709:
article, AND incubation of the AFD'd article is a suitable alternative to outright deletion... offering a place where
793:
726:
579:
475:
434:
386:
section, which ones are not being met? By what policy or guideline are you suggesting this article be deleted? --
244:
148:
40:
228:
52:. The critical fact here seems to be that there's a wealth of sources related to its previous unnamed state.
284:
774:
752:
729:
661:
as we learn that THAT title is only a recent event when reading a source speaking about Selick which states
648:
628:
624:
582:
534:
513:
478:
453:
437:
420:
400:
364:
348:
213:
144:
67:
748:
789:
769:
620:
409:, given that literally 100% of the coverage is saying the same thing about the film at this point. Also
395:
343:
36:
378:". Can you point out which parts of that guideline this topic fails to meet, also keeping in mind that
194:
598:, there's "a film might meet inclusion criteria through meeting the General notability guideline" and
719:
572:
468:
427:
375:
89:
694:
551:
530:
509:
180:
406:
744:
611:
599:
595:
459:
443:
410:
379:
203:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
788:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
160:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
761:
689:
However, the topic was not ready for an article then, though being then a cancelled project
679:
387:
335:
58:
717:
can be added through collaborative editing until a return to mainspace is deemed merited.
714:
710:
563:
81:
73:
526:
505:
702:
698:
616:
591:
567:
555:
547:
501:
706:
603:
119:
607:
383:
53:
265:"Henry Selick revives 'Shadow King': Josh Penn produces stop-motion project"
285:"Berlin 2013: Henry Selick and Josh Penn Greenlight 'The Shadow King'"
462:, but am instead pointing out an often-encountered problem with the
229:"Henry Selick seeks new backing for animated film dropped by Disney"
466:
assigned by the AFD template. Please see my longer response below.
570:
intended as instructional and cautionary, and not exclusionary.
782:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
317:"First Look At Henry Selick's Newly Revived 'The Shadow King'"
442:
Where? I saw no other coverage anywhere before this point.
713:
instructs how souracble information on this production's
115:
111:
107:
179:
413:since it doesn't seem that any work has been done.
301:"K5 International revives Selick's The Shadow King"
590:The subject of the article meets all criteria of
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
796:). No further edits should be made to this page.
219:Additional sources not currently in the article:
701:. As the project has been given new life, its
193:
8:
657:(Chuckle) Certainly not under the title
641:happen. Nothing else has been said yet.
382:? Of the five bullet points under the
7:
558:, the discussion of planned events
245:"Henry Selick revives 'Shadow King'"
743:per obvious significant coverage.
24:
546:as it is receiving coverage as a
500:(or merge if appropriate). Per
283:Scott Roxborough (2013-02-04).
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
612:Other evidence of notability
600:Other evidence of notability
460:adding or restoring material
384:general notability guideline
380:notability is not temporary
299:Ian Sandwell (2013-02-05).
813:
775:00:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
753:03:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
315:Drew Taylor (2013-02-05).
263:Dave McNary (2013-02-05).
243:Dave McNary (2013-02-04).
68:13:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
730:21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
649:21:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
629:18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
583:03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
535:10:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
514:14:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
479:21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
454:21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
438:03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
421:06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
401:06:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
365:05:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
349:05:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
214:07:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
785:Please do not modify it.
682:... earlier information
287:. The Hollywood Reporter
227:Ben Child (2013-02-05).
32:Please do not modify it.
525:is also acceptable. --
693:had it qualify as an
319:. Blogs.indiewire.com
715:history and setbacks
376:Knowledge:Notability
606:is an established
48:The result was
772:
697:as allowed under
398:
346:
303:. Screendaily.com
267:. Chicago Tribune
804:
787:
770:
767:
764:
722:
646:
644:Ten Pound Hammer
575:
548:work-in-progress
471:
451:
449:Ten Pound Hammer
430:
418:
416:Ten Pound Hammer
396:
393:
390:
362:
360:Ten Pound Hammer
344:
341:
338:
327:
325:
324:
311:
309:
308:
295:
293:
292:
275:
273:
272:
255:
253:
252:
239:
237:
236:
211:
209:Ten Pound Hammer
198:
197:
183:
135:
123:
105:
65:
56:
34:
812:
811:
807:
806:
805:
803:
802:
801:
800:
794:deletion review
783:
765:
762:
720:
703:detailed SIGCOV
659:The Shadow King
642:
573:
469:
447:
428:
414:
391:
388:
358:
339:
336:
322:
320:
314:
306:
304:
298:
290:
288:
282:
270:
268:
262:
250:
248:
242:
234:
232:
226:
207:
140:
131:
96:
82:The Shadow King
80:
77:
74:The Shadow King
59:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
810:
808:
799:
798:
778:
777:
755:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
652:
651:
632:
631:
585:
540:
539:
538:
537:
517:
516:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
368:
367:
352:
351:
331:
330:
329:
328:
312:
296:
279:
278:
277:
276:
257:
256:
240:
221:
220:
201:
200:
137:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
809:
797:
795:
791:
786:
780:
779:
776:
773:
768:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
742:
739:
738:
731:
728:
727:
724:
723:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
681:
677:
675:
673:
671:
668:
666:Pixar/Disney.
664:
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
650:
645:
640:
636:
635:
634:
633:
630:
626:
622:
621:Silver Buizel
618:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:. As for the
593:
589:
586:
584:
581:
580:
577:
576:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
541:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
520:
519:
518:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
496:
495:
480:
477:
476:
473:
472:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
450:
445:
441:
440:
439:
436:
435:
432:
431:
424:
423:
422:
417:
412:
408:
405:So far, it's
404:
403:
402:
399:
394:
385:
381:
377:
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
361:
356:
355:
354:
353:
350:
347:
342:
333:
332:
318:
313:
302:
297:
286:
281:
280:
266:
261:
260:
259:
258:
246:
241:
230:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
217:
216:
215:
210:
205:
196:
192:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
142:Find sources:
138:
134:
130:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
64:
63:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
784:
781:
757:
745:NickCochrane
740:
725:
718:
707:Henry Selick
690:
683:
658:
643:
638:
604:Henry Selick
587:
578:
571:
559:
543:
522:
497:
474:
467:
464:Find sources
463:
448:
433:
426:
415:
359:
321:. Retrieved
305:. Retrieved
289:. Retrieved
269:. Retrieved
249:. Retrieved
233:. Retrieved
208:
202:
190:
184:
176:
169:
163:
157:
151:
141:
128:
61:
60:
49:
47:
31:
28:
608:Stop Motion
562:allowed by
407:WP:ONEEVENT
167:free images
686:available.
596:WP:TOOSOON
568:guidelines
527:Rob Sinden
523:Incubation
506:Rob Sinden
444:WP:PROVEIT
411:WP:TOOSOON
323:2013-03-05
307:2013-03-05
291:2013-03-05
271:2013-03-05
251:2013-03-05
235:2013-03-05
231:. Guardian
204:WP:TOOSOON
790:talk page
695:exception
552:exception
458:I am not
247:. Variety
37:talk page
792:or in a
721:Schmidt,
691:might've
574:Schmidt,
544:Incubate
470:Schmidt,
429:Schmidt,
334:Best, --
126:View log
39:or in a
173:WP refs
161:scholar
99:protect
94:history
763:auburn
711:policy
699:WP:NFF
617:WP:GNG
592:WP:GNG
564:policy
556:WP:NFF
502:WP:NFF
498:Delete
389:auburn
337:auburn
145:Google
103:delete
766:pilot
680:voila
392:pilot
340:pilot
188:JSTOR
149:books
133:Stats
120:views
112:watch
108:links
16:<
771:talk
758:Keep
749:talk
741:Keep
639:will
625:talk
588:Keep
566:and
531:talk
510:talk
397:talk
345:talk
181:FENS
155:news
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
50:keep
647:•
554:to
452:•
419:•
363:•
212:•
195:TWL
124:– (
55:Ged
751:)
684:IS
627:)
560:IS
533:)
512:)
446:.
175:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
62:UK
747:(
623:(
529:(
508:(
326:.
310:.
294:.
274:.
254:.
238:.
199:)
191:·
185:·
177:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
147:(
139:(
136:)
129:·
122:)
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.