Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradise Lost (2012 film)
Source: 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. No consensus to delete. The issue on whether or not this should be redirected for the time being can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Paradise Lost (2012 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 entered production (and is not scheduled to until the spring) and has not had significant coverage. I suggest to incubate, but it cannot have a stand-alone article yet per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 18:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paradise Lost#Films until the film starts production, per WP:NFF. The work that has been done on this article already can be preserved in the edit history until the film qualifies for a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It starts filming next month and has a cast list which includes a few A-List actors and a renowned director and distribution company attached to the project...--Stemoc (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, i would have liked to have been informed this was being considered for deletion. Secondly, per Stemoc, the film is due to begin filming next month (could you link me a source for that so i can add it?). RAP (talk) 0:54 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- mentioned here, to be shot in sydney...--Stemoc (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey RAP, you were notified. BOVINEBOY2008 00:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Stemoc. Nothing is gained in preventing this article from doing anything but develop normally at this point. postdlf (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paradise Lost#Films. As film has not entered into production, anything can happen per WP:NFF, and not notable at this stage. Very little information on the film except for casting, but as Metropolitan90 points out, this will be preserved anyway. Should not be considered one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF as coverage fairly insignificant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Stemoc. It's not like this is some obscure low-budget indie film; they're even talking about it being made in 3D. Coverage of this film will likely begin to snowball once filming starts. SweetNightmares (awaken) 17:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've hit the nail on the head there: "once filming starts". Until then, this isn't notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This film isn't just in pre-production, if you read the news articles, it says that the actors in this movie are already rehearsing their lines and scenes. It would be idiotic to delete this article now and then recreate it again 24 days later....Watch the video on this news article today from the Huffington Post. The lead actor, Bradley Cooper talks about the movie as well as showing a picture of his costume for the movie. --Stemoc (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we should redirect it. Nothing will be lost, and once there is more coverage and filming starts, the redirect can be reverted. In the meantime, any additional information can be added at redirect location. Easy! P.S. - rehearsing lines is not part of the production process, it is still in the pre-production stages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does he confirm that filming has commenced? This is still just a news article - see my comment below. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aah..Wikipedians, making even the simplest of things harder....I do not get your logic, this movie will not go into filming in 2 or 3 months or more but in less than a month. The article alone has had over 4700 views this month. This is not a crystalball. This movie is a definite GO. This film is not just a "rumour " or in developments stages such as scripting and neither is it in development hell. The filming dates have been defined and its January 2012, It will be released in 2013 and the core of the main cast has been confirmed...Redirecting this article serves no purpose--Stemoc (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No purpose, unless you read the established guidelines regarding notability, which this article fails. You seem to be very definite in the fact that this film will be made. No-one can know the future. At the moment there is no film to write an article on, just the plan of a film. What's your obection to following guidelines and developing this "on an article about the subject matter" until it becomes notable? Do you have any extenuating circumstances why we shouldn't follow guidelines? If we don't follow guidelines, we end up with articles like Used Guys knocking around. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the Used Guys was that it never into pre-production. It was scrapped due to high costs by the production company. Though the chance of a less expensive version may see it get made in the near future. The guidelines are not perfect on this wiki. It Assumes that every film in pre-production will NOT get made. It doesn't account for Bigger budgeted movies. Maybe the people who set up the guidelines were not familiar with how this work. Maybe we should also delete the article on the 2016 Summer Olympics article as well because, per the guidelines, it has not happen and will not happen for another 5 years...Why are the guidelines biased towards films only? This movie is also in pre-production and yet no one has challenged its inclusion. Maybe you should go through this category and start tagging every movie there for deletion because we don't know how many of those movies are in development mode, script mode, or even in pre-production.....Just because the people who wrote the guidelines didn't account for this doesn't mean you have to blindly follow that guideline--Stemoc (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, the guidelines are often discussed by the members of WP:WikiProject Film so would suggest that the guidelines are monitored by people who are "familiar with how this work". They do not assume that any film in pre-production will not get made, but states that a film is not notable until it gets made (because it doesn't exist), and then when it is in production, only notable if the production itself is notable. Have a look at WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Pre-production stages have clearly been taken into account when writing the guidelines, becuase they say that articles for films that have not started principal photography should not be created. Of course, there are common sense exceptions to the guidelines, but this is clearly not one of them, as there is very little on this article except for parrotting casting and minor production decisions. As I've already asked - do you have any extenuating circumstances why we shouldn't follow guidelines? What's your obection to following guidelines and developing this "on an article about the subject matter" until it becomes notable? And I agree - the Burt Wonderstone article is also premature (and there probably some others too). The existence of one article does not justify the inclusion of another. Oh - and WP:CRYSTAL deals with your question regarding the Olympics. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think you're making this a bigger deal than it needs to be. What would be the point of moving it now, only to move it back in a month or so? Is "because it's policy" the only argument? If that's the case, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia's purpose is to provide copyright-free information that is free and open to the public. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It is for petty things such as this that WP:IGNORE exists. SweetNightmares (awaken) 00:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He truly believes that WP:NFF is policy and it is his only argument. As i have tried to explain to him (to no success), the real premature articles are forcasting films announced. I feel an article becomes notable when they announce casting AND filming dates. RAP (talk) 1:46 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked you before Rusted Auto Parts to stop trying to make things personal. Please read WP:Avoid personal attacks. Once more and I will be taking this further. As you can see from my arguments above and below, I have more than explained my reasoning for considering this article to be non-notable in more than just terms of WP:NFF. You may feel that a film becomes notable once a filming date is announced, but this is NOT what the guidelines say. Even if filming had started, there is not "significant coverage" to make this article notable - see below. You are entitled to your opinion, why are you so against me having one? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What personal attack? I was only saying that you were enforcing a guideline as policy. Not making it personal at all. And a film can only receive significant coverage only when it's filming? Boloney! As stated perviously, a film can receive coverage before filming. That part in WP:NFF should really be re-written as "Any film that has only been announced or hasn't entered any stage of production should NOT receive an article." I.E., If any film isn't in pre-production bordering filming, than yes, redirect it. Please calm down, Rob, and read WP:LEMONADE (i should probably too). RAP (talk) 12:44 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, discussion should be about the subject matter, not the editor. You jumped into the discussion here with "He truly believes that WP:NFF is policy and it is his only argument" - this is an attack on the editor, not the content. It is also untrue. Any changes to WP:NFF should be discussed at the relevant talk page to see if you can find consensus. And I'm not saying that any film can't receive significant coverage, I just feel that this one hasn't yet. Please note though that significant coverage is not just saying "John Doe has been cast" - this is just a repeat of news - it needs to have been discussed objectively and had some critical anaylysis - see my comment below regarding that. And generally, until a film receives this, it is not notable. Also, a film does not automatically become notable the minute the cameras start rolling either. It still needs the same significant coverage. Arguments for keeping the article need to demonstrate that significant coverage is existent, not argue that "this film is notable because it is going to get made" or "look - there are loads of sources saying John Doe will be in it". These are not valid arguments. Also, an argument for why an article should be excepted from the guidelines is more useful than "I don't like the guideline". Please also note that I am not the only editor with these opinions regarding this article, and it wasn't my nomination in the first place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What personal attack? I was only saying that you were enforcing a guideline as policy. Not making it personal at all. And a film can only receive significant coverage only when it's filming? Boloney! As stated perviously, a film can receive coverage before filming. That part in WP:NFF should really be re-written as "Any film that has only been announced or hasn't entered any stage of production should NOT receive an article." I.E., If any film isn't in pre-production bordering filming, than yes, redirect it. Please calm down, Rob, and read WP:LEMONADE (i should probably too). RAP (talk) 12:44 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked you before Rusted Auto Parts to stop trying to make things personal. Please read WP:Avoid personal attacks. Once more and I will be taking this further. As you can see from my arguments above and below, I have more than explained my reasoning for considering this article to be non-notable in more than just terms of WP:NFF. You may feel that a film becomes notable once a filming date is announced, but this is NOT what the guidelines say. Even if filming had started, there is not "significant coverage" to make this article notable - see below. You are entitled to your opinion, why are you so against me having one? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He truly believes that WP:NFF is policy and it is his only argument. As i have tried to explain to him (to no success), the real premature articles are forcasting films announced. I feel an article becomes notable when they announce casting AND filming dates. RAP (talk) 1:46 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I really think you're making this a bigger deal than it needs to be. What would be the point of moving it now, only to move it back in a month or so? Is "because it's policy" the only argument? If that's the case, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia's purpose is to provide copyright-free information that is free and open to the public. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It is for petty things such as this that WP:IGNORE exists. SweetNightmares (awaken) 00:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, the guidelines are often discussed by the members of WP:WikiProject Film so would suggest that the guidelines are monitored by people who are "familiar with how this work". They do not assume that any film in pre-production will not get made, but states that a film is not notable until it gets made (because it doesn't exist), and then when it is in production, only notable if the production itself is notable. Have a look at WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Pre-production stages have clearly been taken into account when writing the guidelines, becuase they say that articles for films that have not started principal photography should not be created. Of course, there are common sense exceptions to the guidelines, but this is clearly not one of them, as there is very little on this article except for parrotting casting and minor production decisions. As I've already asked - do you have any extenuating circumstances why we shouldn't follow guidelines? What's your obection to following guidelines and developing this "on an article about the subject matter" until it becomes notable? And I agree - the Burt Wonderstone article is also premature (and there probably some others too). The existence of one article does not justify the inclusion of another. Oh - and WP:CRYSTAL deals with your question regarding the Olympics. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the Used Guys was that it never into pre-production. It was scrapped due to high costs by the production company. Though the chance of a less expensive version may see it get made in the near future. The guidelines are not perfect on this wiki. It Assumes that every film in pre-production will NOT get made. It doesn't account for Bigger budgeted movies. Maybe the people who set up the guidelines were not familiar with how this work. Maybe we should also delete the article on the 2016 Summer Olympics article as well because, per the guidelines, it has not happen and will not happen for another 5 years...Why are the guidelines biased towards films only? This movie is also in pre-production and yet no one has challenged its inclusion. Maybe you should go through this category and start tagging every movie there for deletion because we don't know how many of those movies are in development mode, script mode, or even in pre-production.....Just because the people who wrote the guidelines didn't account for this doesn't mean you have to blindly follow that guideline--Stemoc (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No purpose, unless you read the established guidelines regarding notability, which this article fails. You seem to be very definite in the fact that this film will be made. No-one can know the future. At the moment there is no film to write an article on, just the plan of a film. What's your obection to following guidelines and developing this "on an article about the subject matter" until it becomes notable? Do you have any extenuating circumstances why we shouldn't follow guidelines? If we don't follow guidelines, we end up with articles like Used Guys knocking around. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aah..Wikipedians, making even the simplest of things harder....I do not get your logic, this movie will not go into filming in 2 or 3 months or more but in less than a month. The article alone has had over 4700 views this month. This is not a crystalball. This movie is a definite GO. This film is not just a "rumour " or in developments stages such as scripting and neither is it in development hell. The filming dates have been defined and its January 2012, It will be released in 2013 and the core of the main cast has been confirmed...Redirecting this article serves no purpose--Stemoc (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does he confirm that filming has commenced? This is still just a news article - see my comment below. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we should redirect it. Nothing will be lost, and once there is more coverage and filming starts, the redirect can be reverted. In the meantime, any additional information can be added at redirect location. Easy! P.S. - rehearsing lines is not part of the production process, it is still in the pre-production stages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This film isn't just in pre-production, if you read the news articles, it says that the actors in this movie are already rehearsing their lines and scenes. It would be idiotic to delete this article now and then recreate it again 24 days later....Watch the video on this news article today from the Huffington Post. The lead actor, Bradley Cooper talks about the movie as well as showing a picture of his costume for the movie. --Stemoc (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've hit the nail on the head there: "once filming starts". Until then, this isn't notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As well as WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF, I would like to direct editors commenting here to read WP:GNG which states "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. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." As all we have here is a list of cast and crew, this is just a news item; we have no critical analysis here. I'd invite you to reconsider your stance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Per the GNG and NFF, there is no significant coverage for this potential film. I wouldn't delete the page, but the title should have been a redirect from the getgo. Redirect it to either Alex Proyas' page, or to the Paradise Lost page. It completely fails the notability guideline regardless, and could not be considered one of the "exceptions" considering the lack of coverage it has. The sources also contradict the page. This one announcing Cooper's involvement says it's planned for a 2013 release. This says that it will be a "LATE" 2013. Another 2013, and again in 2013. So, this film isn't even close to coming out. It's go almost 2 years before it's planned release in late 2013. With the limited coverage, and the fact that the sources even say that production won't start until 2012, it should not be a page right now. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep So far, it looks as if there are a growing number of references and information on cast and crew. Many notable names here. This looks like a big production. If the James Bond films can be listed before they even have titles, why not this one? Let it grow naturally, it will unfold quickly.--Fightingirish (talk) 03:06, 11 December 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.