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. Cirt (
talk) 00:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete non notable film per
WP:NFF unreleased films are only notable if the production itself is in some way notable, and there is no evidence in this case that the production is notable.
Mayalld (
talk) 19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - the director is clearly notable, and the film stars Charlotte Rampling, an internationally acknowledged film actress. Hard to see how this fails notability, frankly.
Girolamo Savonarola (
talk) 06:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Please refer to policy (
WP:NFF), which is explicit that unreleased films are NOT notable for these reasons. Future films are only notable if there is something notable about the production, and no such notability is shown.
Mayalld (
talk) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
WP:NFF is a very short section which does NOT explicity say what you say it explicitly says. Can you please explain, with quotations from NFF, what you mean? (Also, FWIW, it isn't policy.)
AndyJones (
talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, sorry, guideline! The first sentence of the second paragraph is the relevant part Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.Mayalld (
talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, but that's exactly what Girolamo is saying, surely: notable director + famous star = notable movie. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but your suggestion that NFF explicitly rebuts that argument is just plain wrong. In view of the comments which have been made here, can you explain why you think this film is not notable? "No evidence that it is" doesn't carry much weight.
AndyJones (
talk) 07:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
My reading is that the standard for future films is higher. The standard is NOT that the film will be notable when released, but that the process of making the film must be in some way notable.
Mayalld (
talk) 07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
"Production" in this instance must refer to the project itself – "Johnny Depp appeared in Stanley Kubrick's production of 'With Six You Get Eggroll'" – not to the process of making the film. It would be extremely rare that, in advance of a film's release, enough would be known about the process of making a particular film to make it notable on that account. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(
t /
c) 07:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Indeed, it would be rare, but thatit, I believe the intention. Broadly speaking, per
WP:CRYSTAL we don't do articles about future events. Now, if a film production is noteworthy, because (say) the director has come out of retirement, or the film brings together two huge stars who have never worked together, or employs new technology etc. etc. it becomes notable. The fact that upon release it is likely to be notable doesn't cut it in my book.
Mayalld (
talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (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.
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. Cirt (
talk) 00:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete non notable film per
WP:NFF unreleased films are only notable if the production itself is in some way notable, and there is no evidence in this case that the production is notable.
Mayalld (
talk) 19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - the director is clearly notable, and the film stars Charlotte Rampling, an internationally acknowledged film actress. Hard to see how this fails notability, frankly.
Girolamo Savonarola (
talk) 06:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Please refer to policy (
WP:NFF), which is explicit that unreleased films are NOT notable for these reasons. Future films are only notable if there is something notable about the production, and no such notability is shown.
Mayalld (
talk) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
WP:NFF is a very short section which does NOT explicity say what you say it explicitly says. Can you please explain, with quotations from NFF, what you mean? (Also, FWIW, it isn't policy.)
AndyJones (
talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, sorry, guideline! The first sentence of the second paragraph is the relevant part Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.Mayalld (
talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, but that's exactly what Girolamo is saying, surely: notable director + famous star = notable movie. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but your suggestion that NFF explicitly rebuts that argument is just plain wrong. In view of the comments which have been made here, can you explain why you think this film is not notable? "No evidence that it is" doesn't carry much weight.
AndyJones (
talk) 07:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
My reading is that the standard for future films is higher. The standard is NOT that the film will be notable when released, but that the process of making the film must be in some way notable.
Mayalld (
talk) 07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
"Production" in this instance must refer to the project itself – "Johnny Depp appeared in Stanley Kubrick's production of 'With Six You Get Eggroll'" – not to the process of making the film. It would be extremely rare that, in advance of a film's release, enough would be known about the process of making a particular film to make it notable on that account. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(
t /
c) 07:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Indeed, it would be rare, but thatit, I believe the intention. Broadly speaking, per
WP:CRYSTAL we don't do articles about future events. Now, if a film production is noteworthy, because (say) the director has come out of retirement, or the film brings together two huge stars who have never worked together, or employs new technology etc. etc. it becomes notable. The fact that upon release it is likely to be notable doesn't cut it in my book.
Mayalld (
talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (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.